What is your opinion on chromatic aberration?

>>383494336
Like it, when its subtile

Another version of 'Lets make the game look shit because that'll somehow make it more real'
See also: piss filters, lens flare

Its a buzz word that nu /v/ parrots in place of actual complaints about a game.

I actually am a fan of it when it actually is used properly. I'm a sucker for any kind of old vhs/tv looking aesthetic.

>>383494336
fucking hate it. it's probably the one effect i hate the most in games

>>383494336
It's perfect

>>383494336
>CoD

just like lens flares I turn or mod this shit off whenever I can

>>383494336
it's an aberration

File: 2840413-0181071411-maxre.jpg (393KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1920x1080px

Defend this

>>383494531
the next bloom

It's fucking garbage and I don't understand why anyone would use it in videogames or digital art. What the FUCK does it even DO? It just creates more 'visual noise' or whatever it's called in english, for no purpose whatsoever. I legitimately cannot imagine any human being liking it for any reason

It's great when well used. Usually it's shit.

>>383495024
Bloodborne uses it well, it gives an otherworldly vibe to everything. Now and then it abuses it and combined with the frame rate it can be "heavy" on the eyes.

>>383494515
>old vhs/tv looking aesthetic

That's not what chromatic aberration is. I don't know the exact theory behind camera lenses, but in humans chromatic aberration is corrected by your brain, if you're literally ill or very tired/stressed, your brain will say fuck it and draw blue and red borders on the left/right edge of objects. Because something something eyes, sunlight.

File: Pepe Psychodelic.jpg (412KB, 653x635px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 653x635px

>>383494906

>>383495396
It's still the effect that it's used for in media such as video games. Such as a game like cuphead

It's great

File: Chris-chromatic-aberration.png (103KB, 242x316px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 242x316px

>>383495396
Old tapes did sometimes suffer of severe chromatic aberration.

>>383495568
could you please delete this? thanks!

>>383495396
Its a natural effect of 2 eye sight. Each eye is slightly different and viewing a single object form 2 separate trajectories. Red and Blue 3d lenses are a thing for a reason.

Its used in games to "simulate" VR but does it either completely wrong or just mostly wrong. Your brain still knows and will always know it is looking at a flat screen. You cannot trick the brain into thinking its real 3d or real at all when doing it. Its literally a meme that makes games look worse because it doesn't work as intended.

Then you have shitters doing it for "artistic" value. If you ever encounter this be wary as the person doing it doesn't understand artistic value and sits in the camp of "if I can do thing, I should do thing." and the "thing" they CAN do is a lazy filter, not create something truly artistic. So be wary.

File: 1498563118379.jpg (11KB, 181x272px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 181x272px

>>383495568

>>383494336
depends on the artistic direction of the game, if the art director is shit it will ruin the experience, if he knows what he's doing it can cause cool effects.

>>383494336
For me, It means turn off the feature or turn off the game.

>>383495396
The reason is that the refraction of light (how much it gets bent when it crosses a water surface, or through a lens, or through rising/falling air) depends on it's wavelength (i.e. color), so different colors get refracted slightly more strongly than others (see: rainbows). So that actual focal length of a lens differs ever so slightly depending on color.

>>383495024
That's a screenshot of a Youtube video

>>383494358
This.

Anyone notice it appearing in anime now?

>>383496635
I've been seeing alot of screengrabs of recent anime on 4chan and the ones with dark red line art instead of black is sickening.

>>383496635
There is a studio where the autistic directors use it for some reason

>>383495024
I have no idea why the fuck Bloodborne of all things had chromatic aberration. At least it's generally not noticeable, I only really see it when I'm not moving around

>>383495396
Underrated post. Joke went over my head the first time.

File: gatchaman-03-1.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>383496635
>now

File: fig-2-aaa.gif (29KB, 550x253px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 550x253px

>>383495396
>>383495861
Chromatic aberrations are a fundamental result of all lenses, because the refractive index of a lens is different for each wavelength of light that passes through it. It can be corrected for, but never perfectly.

Artificial lenses such as those used in cameras use sometimes use many different materials and designs to attempt to optically correct for the separation that occurs when light is passed though a lens. Pictured is an achromatic triplet, but you can also use different materials like fluoride which have higher refractive indexes, allowing you to still correct more complex lens designs.

Our eyes perform chromatic aberration correction to a certain extent optically, and a certain percent in the visual image processing center of our brain. Instead of having multiple different elements, our eye instead has one lens but the lens has variable density - performing all the light bending of several complementary lenses, but in one small space -
something that we can't yet do with artificial lenses.

Chromatic aberration appears strongest at high contrast borders. We don't notice this especially, because it's filtered by our visual processing, but our visual processing expects it. Because monitors have a reduced contrast ratio compared to the real world, it makes sense to add a little bit of chromatic aberration back in.

Also chromatic aberration is good at hiding flaws in an image in a digital render, although in photography it just looks shit. Absolute 0 CA in a render looks a bit crap, you always want at least a smidgen, in combination with a little bit of DoF too.

For most games it's a cheap way of making the game look "better". It enhances detail similarly to sharpening filters, while also hiding jaggies like a FXAA filter. Which is why I don't like it, it's usually supposed to fool dumbasses into thinking a mediocre game look better.

>>383497402
So it literally re-adds something our brains are designed to filter out thru normal processing? And thats a good thing because...

>>383495568
Burgers cost $58008.17 and .07th of a penny? Fucking hell America.

>>383497609
Because your brain is used to it and you will perceive something as unnatural if it does not have characteristics it has come to expect.

>>383497781
Flip it 180 degrees anon.

>>383497891
Why does it cost that much to have an upside down burger? I don't get the appeal.

>>383497845
and this helps in a game in what way? The only genre that would benefit from it is horror games and only Alien Isolation has done it well. All others ruin their respective experiences more than add to them.

Why does GTA5 need to make me feel unnatural?

>>383494336
it's shit and should be turned off no matter what
also bloom and blur

>>383498068
I think object based motion blur can be okay to add emphasis to force on attacks like in dark souls. But camera motion blur is cancer, and most forms for depth of field

>>383497978
He's retarded anyway, there isn't a single medium in which chromatic abberation is accepted except for some reason videogames now.

And some extreme edge cases like psychological thriller movies.

A lot of effort and money was spent to make sure nothing has CA, and the kind you see in games aren't even realistic 99% of the time in the absolute off-chance that you have a really specific defect with your lens. CA hasn't been an issue since we stopped using a single lens in cameras which is a trillion years ago.

And this is coming from someone who can understand pretty much any other effect in videogames to date. CA however is literally eyecancer.

>image corruption that people remove on photography is added in videogames because everyone has cameras for eyes

and lens flare... and film grain.... motion blur....

seriously wtf is wrong with the industry, these developer morons are literally using processing power to make the graphics worse

>>383498457
>explains how CA works and why you would ever be motivated to add it
>with science
>retarded because I don't like/understand the reasoning

What even. Since his post apparently went over your head, I'll try to explain it more plainly. Computer monitors don't fall victim to CA as strongly as your vision of physical objects, so a little bit is added in to make digital images look more realistic, not less as you might think it would do based on the times that too much is added and you notice it.

80% of the time: awful
20% of the time: meh, ok I guess

>>383494336
It's fucking SHIT. The only time it managed not to look out of place was in Alien Isolation, because it was an explicit aspect of that game's aesthetics. Now you can see that eyecancer everywhere, and at least in games you can usually disable it, but when it worms its way into anime or even fucking 2D porn there's no fucking way around it.

File: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3.jpg (226KB, 1320x742px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1320x742px

>>383494614

>>383498801
Your post was fine until you thought that for some reason we still perceive CA unless it's captured digitally. Protip: We don't unless you wear glasses.

No amount of CA is acceptable.

>>383495568
Wendy's is easily the best fast food burger

>>383498656
What part of "our eyes are also imaging devices" do you not fucking understand? Or are you unaware that our eyes use lenses and fall to the same flaws as lenses because lens flaws like lens flare are due to the physics that affect everything?

Those effects are added because their realistic and the correctionary measures in our brains expect them to occur and cause their absense to make an image unnatural. You only notice when the developer uses too much because they're bad at it and/or are compensating for some flaw in the render.

Except film grain of course, but that's added for aesthetical preference really so shit on it if you want

>>383494336
It should only be used if the player character is a robot, or is looking through a remote camera.

>>383498801
>I don't know what science means

>>383498927
Are you well and truly unaware that there are lenses inside our eyes? Our eyes experience CA whether your have glasses or not.

File: 1461764083948.jpg (234KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1200x1200px

I still to this day don't understand why anyone would want thier game to look like an out of focus lens.

It's the second worst post-processing effect in current video games. The first worst is vignetting.

>>383494336
It's physically correct because your eyes produce aberrations.

Thus if you're aiming for photorealism you need at least a slight amount.

Bloodborne overdoes it to the detriment of the graphics; everything outside the middle of the frame has a low-res look to it.

>>383499341
>The first worst is vignetting.

thats a profoundly strange way to spell film grain...

>>383499189
>>383499308
idiot blind retards who think that real humans see in 3D glasses vision.

>Those effects are added because their realistic and the correctionary measures in our brains expect them to occur and cause their absense to make an image unnatural.
dumbest most made-up bullshit I have ever heard.

>>383499189
Do you actually believe that or are you just trying that desperately to be a contrarian? That argument is as convincing as the ones used by flat Earth fags.

>>383494336
It looks neat when used lightly in games with "lo-fi" looks like Alien Isolation. Other than that, nah I turn it off in most games play. Same with motion blur.

>>383499308
If your eyes experience CA, seek medical help. There's many reasons why we don't see CA in our daily lives and while the brain does 'filter out' some of it, our eyes aren't as simple as just a lens. It can be almost be considered a two-lens equivalent.

>>383499482
I'm very curious as to what part of that you think is made-up

hey guys have you ever looked at a drawing on a piece of paper. your eyes don't see it right because they artist didn't apply chromatic abberation to it.

ever looked at a wall? you don't see it right because the stonemason didn't apply CA

>>383499761
Damn, I finally understand now. We should totally double the chromatic aberration that's already filtered out with more chromatic aberration for realism.

Thanks modern videogame devs!

>something to avoid in any media dealing with lens
>it's considered artistic on video games
Only on this fucking industry.

>>383499459
>film grain
That's an odd way of spelling motion blur

>>383494336
It's in the same tier as motion blur, depth of field, and lens flare - FUCKING. DUMB.

>>383498656
They really ruined battlefield 3 with this shit

I wish I saved that one pic of the BF3 box art where they had flash lights and lens flare all everywhere and a soldier halfway into the ground, that was the best representation of what BF3 was.

Between the lens flare, all the flashlights and lasers and the blue filter that game was a real eyesore despite how technically impressive it was. It's amazing how they made such a good looking game and covered it up with post processed garbage

File: 1391721042129.gif (3MB, 530x397px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 530x397px

>depth of field
>chromatic abberation
>motion blur
Uncheck all of these boxes always.

>>383498656
They want to make it look captured with a camera because in an age of CGI additions people perceive that to be "more realistic" than actual realism. It's the same reason TV shows are still being shits about 60fps.

>>383500132
This. I turn all these off before I even set resolution in a game.

>>383499610
As other anons said, our eyes are actually equivalents of far more complex systems but whatever. Eyes always experience CA becaues it's an unavoidable problem of physics, but yes you shouldn't notice it in real life but the fact that our brain handles some of it is the root of the problem and necessity for a tiny bit of CA in digital images.

In order to speed up our visual processing (and thus allow us to process better images in real time) our brain-based corrective measures are applied proactively on the assumption that the flaw exists. This causes problems when the flaw in question isn't present, because the corrective measure is applied anyway (I wear modern bifocals, and my brain automatically corrects for the distortion they cause regardless of whether or not I"m wearing them, which immediately gives me a skull-splitting headache when I try to wear normal lenses)

Ok, so what's that got to do with adding chromatic aberration in digital images? Since CA separates colors like a prism, high-contrast images ("high-contrast" meaning there is more variety and difference in the colors of the image) get hit harder by CA than low-contrast. The kicker is that computer monitors can't perfectly replicate the contrast of real life, so their images dont get distorted by CA as heavily so if you aren't used to looking at them then your brain will overcorrect and make it look unnatural. Hence, a tiny bit of artifical CA is necessary to make digital images look as realistic as possible.

I'd image much of the complaints in this thread come from people noticing it because they're used to computers and their brains recognize the monitor and dial the corrective measures back, or the videogame in question is using it too much.

>>383494336
I don't want it. Ever. I hate it.

>>383500569
Nice story but none of that is relevant to any kind of digital CA you'll EVER see, because our receptors aren't fucking camera sensors and whatever CA left that's filtered by the cornea and crystalline lens wouldn't be RGB.

>>383500569
You realise that at this point you're arguing that real photographs look fake when you view them on a monitor, but not when you print them out?

>>383500569
>I'd image much of the complaints in this thread come from people noticing it because they're used to computers and their brains recognize the monitor and dial the corrective measures back
Why would our brains dial back an adjustment they made themselves in order to restore a visual glitch that the adjustment was specifically made to remove in the first place? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

>>383499189
it must be physically exhausting to be that fucking stupid

>>383501350
That part doesn't even make sense to begin with because it's not like we're viewing the monitor magically with our brains, it still goes through our eyes and has to be compensated for.

I mean, aside from the absurd assumption that we can 'dial back' corrective measures.

>>383501258
...Yes. because monitors can't perfectly replicate the optics of real life. this has been stated and explained multiple times in the thread.

File: 1394837321508.png (35KB, 1334x493px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1334x493px

>>383494358
>>383496420
Neck yourselves.

>>383494336
i dislike most if not all cheap effects.

>>383501350
becaue the glitch in question isn't as powerful with computer monitors so if our brains don't dial back, then they overcorrect and that's just swapping one glitch for another.

>>383501707
It doesn't need to recreate all optics genius, just the worldspace.

Do you think real-life objects have a physical fucking chromatic aberration hanging around them?

>>383501464
how about you prove you're smarter than me, and explain how and why I'm wrong? Saying "you're wrong and stupid" and nothing else only proves that you don't understand what I'm saying.

>>383501851
How could our brains know to dial back the image on the monitor, but somehow fail to do it enough to actually have the desired effect?
Why would game designers artificially include CA in games to compensate for our visual processing, but fail to do it in a way that actually has the desired effect?
Why is a monitor, which is a real-life object, immune to the effects of real-life CA? CA is based on how lenses refract light; it has nothing to do with depth, which is the only appreciable difference between an image displayed on a monitor and reality.

>Literally any thread i create on /v/ creates a shitstorm

Man this place is really assblasted about everything

>>383501914
Do you even know what CA is or where it comes from? no, they don't, it's an IMAGING FLAW based on lens physics. Since our eyes have lenses inside them, this means our natural vision expereinces CA as well. We just don't notice it because those lenses and our brains have correctionary measures in place.

How do you seriously think I've claimed even once that CA is a tangible object? Are you not reading my posts

>>383502153
Experience, mostly, since my eyes knew to correct for the distortions of progressive-prescription lenses based on an intuitive notion of what the world should look like. I theorize that the brain might make an exception for digital monitors based on a similar intuitive idea that CA or the results of overcorrection shouldn't be in our vision.

I really only intended the idea to be a theory as to why we're arguing over whether CA is necessary to an extent or cancer in all forms rather than an assertion of something that definitely actually happens

>>383502163
Aside from the fact that our eyes already correct for CA as explained before and that they are basically achromatic together with our brain, you realise we're viewing the fucking monitor with the same eyes right? You don't double up on fucking CA because your mental gymnastics somehow thinks that makes sense.

Let alone the fact that if your brains didn't account for the CA, it wouldn't look ANYWHERE NEAR digital CA that cameras experience.

>>383494336
Pretty garbage but as long as there's an option to disable it I don't give a fuck. Also it reminds me of Shadman so that's bad

>>383502598
You can "double up" on chromatic aberration because its intensity is not just a function of the imaging device's characteristics, but also of the chromatic contrast of the image in question. (colors that are farther apart from each other on the spectrum get split more extremely, like how prisms split green and yellow only a little but puts red and blue far apart). so images or regions of images that have more or less contrast to them are distorted more or less heavily by CA respectively.

>>383503551
Are you just trolling at this point because you are now admitting that real-life objects have chromatic aberration stuck to them.

OR, you are agreeing with me and are finally accepting that whatever chromatic aberration there would be already happens by viewing the screen through our fucking eyes. And yes, monitors do actually happen to have varying images on them! Just like real-life!

>>383503551
But you're just talking about colors. That has literally nothing to do with the post you quoted, which if you somehow didn't know is asking why monitors are a special case.

>>383503886
Monitors aren't actually a special case, nor did I ever say they were. Any object that has poor contrast (literally any black or grey object) also doesn't get distorted by CA.

>>383503769
>you are now admitting that real-life objects have chromatic aberration stuck to them
I would very much like to hear an explanation as to how or when I ever even implied that. Or do you just think I am because you don't understand that I'm talking about an imaging error, which is an imperfection of imaging and perception rather than a feature of physical reality.

>>383504697
It's not an imaging error though. It would be a sensory deficit if we would have it, but we don't. Neither on real-life or on the monitor unless you introduce it artificially which is not realistic since we don't experience it.

most terrible effect ever. It makes everything look blurry, dull and washed out.

>>383504906
*It would be a sensory deficit if we noticed it.

We do experience it, as do ALL imaging devices where refraction occurs since CA is a physical feature of refraction, but we correct for it and the sensory deficit to which you allude is the lack of those correctionary measures.

>>383504697
I jumped into this a little late, but AFAICT this entire argument is predicated on why gamedevs feel a need to stick artificial CA into things. If you admit digital images play by the same rules as everything else wrt imaging processes, then what was this argument about exactly?

>>383505282
That's synonymous in this context, so don't try to argue semantics.

So no, we don't notice or experience it because it's adjusted for before our consciousness. Just like any lens that isn't from the dark ages, and our eyes that account for it using the cornea and crystalline lens.

>>383505335
>>383505437
because the digital image in question, the videogame, is trying to depict an entire world rather than be a low-contrast object so it's trying to add CA to give the illusion of having as much contrast or range of contrast as the real world. so game devs think they need to stick it in because they think it makes the game look more realistic. but personal preferences as to how much color is needed, not to mention whether it aesthetically fits the tone to have high color contrast (for example, the desturated palletes of noir style). The idea is that taking CA in moderation can actually give the illusion of contrast. It may not for all we know, depending on how the brain actually corrects for it. We just assume it does based on what I'm pretty sure is a misplaced assumption on how or if the brain equates the presence and post-processed appearance of CA to contrast. So it's really kind of a flaky idea, hence there's an argument about it. I'm just trying to explain why it's done, not necessarily justify it.

>>383494336
as retarded as lens flare
its an artifact that you avoid
CA = shitty lens, usually zoom lens has this problem more than primes

>>383500303
Why no motion blur? Older games that were built to run at 30fps absolutely need it.

>>383494336
Fucking aids, I've refunded games in the past before I knew what it was called so I could turn it off.

>>383506905
It's okay anon, I'm with you on this one. Real-time graphics displayed on monitors have the unique problem of being mostly fast slideshows so we don't get natural motion blur.

All motion real-time motion blurs are kind of meh though. Per-object motion blur is kind of ok but if your framerate drops it's still super gross. The performance impact is also pretty large for what you get back for it even if it's not even that great yet.

I hate motion blur when i play a FPS. But for other things like rpgs i like it.