517
The people have spoken: Motion blur is the worst
(www.pcgamer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
517 points (99.2% liked)
PC Gaming
15634 readers
440 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Would need (flat surface) holography style screens to really trick the eyes and fully simulate long range depth rather than simulating it. A proper dynamic holographic screen wouldn't even need fancy lenses (unless you need to resize perhaps). Most current light field-ish displays are just doing mirror/prism arrays over pixels, which looks neat at a distance, but don't have the resolution to trick the eye (see: the external eye screen on the Vision Pro).
Ignoring polarization and pretending there's only 3 colors, a light field display should be equivalent given enough resolution.
A few angular pixels don't give you stereo vision or parallax or anything like that, but if you make them show a "pre blurred" image based on angle you can probably get extremely close to natural out of focus. Basically in the center you present nornal pixels, then off-axis you have pixels that are colored with their own blur applied. So when defocussing, instead of capturing quadratically more angular pixels, you're capturing just a few more that are each averages of what all those pixels would have been.
This only has any chance of working because the eye is at a known location and defocusses in a known basic way.
Even then you'd need to account for the physical movement of the pupil when the eye turns, etc. Maybe the lense layer could be shifted in response to keep the angular pixel distribution pointed right.
There's also the processing problem, you'd need to render way more than is currently done.
Either way it's nowhere near viable at the moment, should be multiple decades away at minimum.
PS:
Technically the 3ds had a light field display with 2 angular pixels. You can get a lot done with low resolution if you force the eyes to be in a specific location.