Plead: no depth of field please!

[Theironclap]

Field of vision for the human eye does blur things on the edges.
So why does the game have to do that, if the eyes already do???

Somewhere out there on the internet is diagrams detailing the quality of visual range from 120 degrees in to 0 degrees. The human eye can only focus and percieve 3d images in a very narrow range compared to the total span of perception. And that area is more or less directly in front of you and something like 10-15 degrees off center. Any more or less than that and you more or less switch to 2D images since only one eye can see whats over there, and you need two angles of perspective to visualize in 3D.

2d/3d vision has indeed everything to do with one eye seeing an item and the other not. You actually defeated your own point, it has nothing to do with focus.

Other than that, your brain only actively focuses in detail something like 30-45 degrees from your center of focus. Meaning that only the things that both your eyes are centered on, are in focus and everything else is relegated to blurred vision.

Maybe I don't get it, but the first sentence is just nonsense, how can your Focus, be somewhere else than your center of focus?
Also the area in which you can see 3d is very large (quick guess is 120 to the sides and all the way upo/down), while the focal point of your eye (fovea) is just 3 degrees in diameter (approximately, the border between fovea and periphery is fairly gradual).

But that's still not an argument of why the game should simulate this, while the eye already does.
I don't want to wear 'Game glasses' so I can see things sharp when the game doesn't want me to.

First, don't answer people inside a quote box. It makes it far more difficult to pick your arguments out of the original. If you want to make an argument, spend the time and effort to break it out and make it clear and concise for your readers.

2d/3d vision has indeed everything to do with one eye seeing an item and the other not. You actually defeated your own point, it has nothing to do with focus.

I didn't defeat anything with that section. Clearly you didn't take debate in school. At worst, that factoid was irrelevant to the argument, not a defeating statement. My failure with that factoid was to point out that that section was in response to someone saying that snipers can keep their other eye open for more visual awareness while shooting, which they very much do in the real world. I failed to elaborate on that point, because I felt it was a secondary topic and not the real meat and potato's of my post, so I didn't invest a whole lot of energy into it, and as a result its meaning was lost.

Maybe I don't get it, but the first sentence is just nonsense, how can your Focus, be somewhere else than your center of focus?

Your lack of reading comprehension does not render a statement nonsense. It was perfectly clear and concise and no one else in the thread has seemed to have problems interpreting it. I don't know if this is due to personal laziness on your part, or english not being your primary language, but its not the fault of the author if you can't understand something written out plainly.

Most people, if they are a capable of controlling their minds, can shift the focus of their awareness to different parts of their sensory organ input. Case in point, if you smell something funny, you can concentrate on the smells coming to your nose. Or if you hear something odd, you can shift your attention to your auditory input. The same is true with your eyes. You can chose to be more aware of your area of focus, or your peripheral vision. Its an adaptation for primitive humans when we were still stalking things in the Savannah. You can focus on your prey, and still be aware of whats going on in the periphery, so you don't become lunch for that lion sneaking up on you.

So to summarize it, just because you shift your concentration to another part of your field of vision, does not mean you must change the focal point of your eyes. And if you for some reason can't I suggest visiting a neurologist and/or an optometrist to find out why.

Also the area in which you can see 3d is very large (quick guess is 120 to the sides and all the way upo/down), while the focal point of your eye (fovea) is just 3 degrees in diameter (approximately, the border between fovea and periphery is fairly gradual).

If you are capable of seeing in 3D for 120 degrees to the sides, you either have no nose, or freakishly large and bulging eyes. Your nose is the primary impediment to seeing 3D over a large range to the left and right. You were right about one thing though the visual range of humans is 120 degrees, from center. That means 0 degrees is right over your nose, and you can see 3d images from 0-60 degrees in either direction for a combined total of 120 degrees. Anything beyond that is 2D. So, when you look to the left or right, right about when you start to see your nose in the picture is the border of the 3D range. Your brain, being the wonderful machine it is, is capable of extrapolating a 3d-like image from a 2D signal, by using your working and experienced based knowledge of the world around it. Thats why you can close one eye and walk across your bedroom and not smack into things. Your brain knows the relative locations and sizes of objects in the world and can infer things from that. Its not as precise as using 3D input from both eyes to composite an image, but its functional. This spacial awareness is also why you can close your eyes and walk across your bedroom with reasonable accuracy.

 

[Theironclap]

For me its simply.
Depth of field makes the game generally focus to a certain point on your screen (usually the centre).

The amount of human abilities you can use in a game are very limited, but you can for instance move your eyeballs and look at different positions on your screen.

By forcing people to pretty much only look at the centre of the screen you take away the ability to use a human ability as the controller in the game.

Its exactly having separate functions and buttons to move for instance the eyeballs that I wouldn't want in the game as that makes things difficult to control. Instead as a user I want to be able to use my own eyeballs, and look at various positions on the screen.

Normally you know at all times even with your eyes closed where your hands are located in 3d space. When controlling my character, I want to be able to use that proprioceptive feedback.

There are already so few of your human abilities that you can use in a game, that I think that every ability and sensory information that can be used, should be used.

- Sound for 3d positioning of the source.
- Direct mouse input rather than accelerated for being able to use proprioceptive feedback.
- Ability to look at things on your screen by moving your eyes, rather than using your arms to move the viewpoint.

Well thats why I said it should be limited. The reasoning I've come to accept for putting DoF in for iron sights is that it seems weird to me that you would really be looking around much with your weapon shouldered. Usually if you are shouldered and looking down the irons you are intending to shoot something, and therefor your focus will be on the ironsights of your weapon, where are currently needing to focus your attentions on. So DoF should be included, because otherwise you are gaining what amounts to inhuman abilities. Without it you're shouldering your weapon, getting a perfect sight picture, and still being able to look around with your real eyes and see things you normally wouldnt be doing in the real world.

I'm not saying its IMPOSSIBLE to look around with the irons up and aligned, I'm just saying is unlikely to be doing so simply because the effort to shoulder and align it is a task that needs attention to the details of the task. Weapons are heavy and no one goes walking around with their irons always up and ready to go. Not to mention for most people keeping the sight picture lined up properly requires a bit of concentration, and awareness of whats going on down the barrel, not off to the right or left of the gun.

Maybe the above wasn't clear. I'm trying to describe an abstract process in text so its hard to express. In the game you can shoulder your gun, get a perfect sight picture, with no effort on your part other than clicking the right mouse button, and it will stay that way as long as you want. You can then look around the screen with your eyes, which is not something you'd be doing in the real world. You wouldnt be doing this because the weapon is heavy, so you wouldn't have your irons up if you didnt have something to shoot at, and it requires concentration on the sight picture which means your focus is on the irons and the target behind them which in the case of the game, is the center of the screen. To be able to do all of that, and still be able to see clearly to the edges of your screen with your real eyes, makes you have a super human ability you wouldn't in the real world, so they inlcude DoF to compensate for the fact that you're sitting at a computer and monitor and not actually manipulating a weapon.

I hope I made that clear enough.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

Given that HoS uses UE3 all you need to know is DepthOfField=False

And even if DoF is in the game, which it appears to be, there very well might be a check box for it in the display settings. TW never forced any of us to run RO or KF with HDR enabled either.

The only interesting example I can think of that DoF was used well was while reloading in Call of Pripyat. It was meant to simulate the character focusing on reloading their weapon. But as some have stated above it was the developer deciding what I should be looking at. It was interesting for a little while, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who can shove a magazine into a Makarov without looking.

 

[Rumo]

I understand what you are trying to say Theironclap, but I have to disagree a little bit.

When I was in the army and had to "scan" an area, I shouldered my weapon, aligned and tilted my head back again. Then I turned my head a little bit to look around while my upper body with the still shouldered weapon followed the movement slightly.
When I saw a target, I just corrected the alignment and was ready to shoot.

If I had looked down the sight all the time and moved left/right, I wouldn

 

[Actin]

(1) First, don't answer people inside a quote box. It makes it far more difficult to pick your arguments out of the original. If you want to make an argument, spend the time and effort to break it out and make it clear and concise for your readers.

(2)I didn't defeat anything with that section. That factoid was irrelevant to the argument, not a defeating statement...someone saying that snipers can keep their other eye open for more visual awareness while shooting

(3) Your lack of reading comprehension does not render a statement nonsense. It was perfectly clear and concise and no one else in the thread has seemed to have problems interpreting it.

(4) If you are capable of seeing in 3D for 120 degrees to the sides, you either have no nose, or freakishly large and bulging eyes. Your nose is the primary impediment to seeing 3D over a large range to the left and right. You were right about one thing though the visual range of humans is 120 degrees, from center. That means 0 degrees is right over your nose, and you can see 3d images from 0-60 degrees in either direction for a combined total of 120 degrees. Anything beyond that is 2D. So, when you look to the left or right, right about when you start to see your nose in the picture is the border of the 3D range. Your brain, being the wonderful machine it is, is capable of extrapolating a 3d-like image from a 2D signal, by using your working and experienced based knowledge of the world around it. Thats why you can close one eye and walk across your bedroom and not smack into things. Your brain knows the relative locations and sizes of objects in the world and can infer things from that. Its not as precise as using 3D input from both eyes to composite an image, but its functional. This spacial awareness is also why you can close your eyes and walk across your bedroom with reasonable accuracy.

1. I am sorry if it's an inconvenience. Personally I like it when other people do that, so I know exactly which point they are referring to.
I will do it this way, so it is clear and not inside a quote box

2. Mistake on my part, I missed the post you were referring to.
I was like 'Why involve 2d/3d in this discussion', thanks for clearing it up.

3. I am not goning to say much a bout three, because it's quite an offensive statement you made there, not cool.
Using 'focus' two times in a sentence while they mean different things, how is it my fault to be confused by that?

4. As I said it was a quick guess, don't attack the exact number...
I appreciate that you fully explain how 3d view works, but that was just waste of posting space. I might have chosen an exaggerated amount of degrees, that doesn't mean I don't understand the whole mechanism.
Also, I might have weird eyes but I can almost see 180 degrees, not just 120 degrees (easily testable with your hands)

 

[Mormegil]

For me its simply.
Depth of field makes the game generally focus to a certain point on your screen (usually the centre).

The amount of human abilities you can use in a game are very limited, but you can for instance move your eyeballs and look at different positions on your screen.

By forcing people to pretty much only look at the centre of the screen you take away the ability to use a human ability as the controller in the game.

A lot of this would be solved with having free-look implemented. Since we haven't seen any footage on this, I very much doubt we'll ever see it in game. In reality, the center of your vision is what's in focus. When you look around, your moving your eyes, and the peripheral vision is also moving. That doesn't happen in game when you look around the screen, unless free-look is in.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I think the pic and the depth of field actually looks very good.

However, as others have stated, the game doesn't know where I am actually looking at in any given moment and the areas I am trying to focus on may actually be blurred.

 

[WinTurkey]

The OPTION to have DOF should be in, as it serves a very important role from a technical POV, it conceals limited draw distances. I don't know how RO2 will handle it but games where stuff inadvertedly "pops-in" and textures are replaced with higher quality ones as you move closer should be blurred so the transition isn't as obvious.

 

[Zetsumei]

A lot of this would be solved with having free-look implemented. Since we haven't seen any footage on this, I very much doubt we'll ever see it in game. In reality, the center of your vision is what's in focus. When you look around, your moving your eyes, and the peripheral vision is also moving. That doesn't happen in game when you look around the screen, unless free-look is in.

Free-look still requires you to look around with your head or your mouse though. While you are correct in saying that the centre of your vision is the centre of your focus, who says that the centre of my vision and thus centre of focus is the centre of the screen.

One of the reasons why people get headaches in 3d movies like Avatar, is that while shot in 3d the cameras used have a certain focal distance. So while your eyes actually need to focus for different images, you can only ever see the thing the camera focuses on sharp.

If you then try to look at the scenery your eyes are never able to focus correctly to get a sharp image, this induces headaches (among with that caused by the flickering ). Anyway I'm interested in seeing how things will work in HOS, but I have faith in TWI.

 

[Fedorov]

Free-look still requires you to look around with your head or your mouse though. While the centre of your vision is the centre of your focus, who says that the centre of my vision and thus centre of focus is the centre of the screen.

One of the reasons why people get headaches in 3d movies like Avatar, is that while shot in 3d the cameras used have a certain focal distance. So while your eyes actually need to focus for different images, you can only ever see the thing the camera focuses on sharp.

If you try to look at the scenery your eyes are never able to focus correctly to get a sharp image, this induces headaches (among with the flickering ). I'm interested in seeing how things will work in HOS, but I have faith in TWI.

Indeed, I hate 3D movies for that reason... they are treated as normal movies, with things on focus and other things out of focus. The point of 3D is to have a more realistic and believable environment, but when my mind perceives something as an object and I can't just focus on it no matter how hard I try, it kills the whole point, and is extremely annoying.

 

[Actin]

One of the reasons why people get headaches in 3d movies like Avatar, is that while shot in 3d the cameras used have a certain focal distance. So while your eyes actually need to focus for different images, you can only ever see the thing the camera focuses on sharp.

This is exactly the reason why I only see animation movies in 3D. Like shrek recently, WAAAAY more comfortably than Avatar to see.

But although I am against the DoF, it indeed results in a pretty screen

 

[SQBsam]

Depth of field is an interesting one...

There seems to be no way to implement it in games, running a game in 3d you have to make your eyes focus at the screen even when the perceived object is jumping out of it or way off in the distance, this is unnatural. At the same time, using coding to blur objects on the screen just doesn't work to rectify this.

It is just a shiny feature. Much like bokeh photography, it creates depth in a 2d image and focuses the players attention well.

Useful for cinematics, annoying in gameplay.

 

[Frostedfire]

A lot of this would be solved with having free-look implemented.

on that topic, free-aim. either the dof focus point is fixed to the centre and you can't see what you're shooting at when firing from the hip, or it's fixed to wherever you're free-aiming at and you can't see where you're running

FBO has the proper solution though

 

[GRIZZLY]

Optimally there should be a 'look-with-your-neck' key so you could change the 'non-blurred' center without moving your gun or free aim...

But it would much easier if they just gave us the option to turn it off