Am I right for hating bloom?
interpolator
Everytime I tell myself "maybe I shouldn't make this thread", I find some new example somewhere on the internet that tells me "no, there's something really bad about bloom".
Bloom isn't new of course, it's been used as early as the PS2 days. But I can't shake this feeling that after reading Marmoset's article on PBR and doing tons of personal photography, that the bloom found in games just make things look more unrealistic then things really should be.
Here's an example. I was browsing 4gamer and came across a tech article for a new game. But look.
She's glowing! Now, why I mentioned PBR and photography in the beginning, I feel like bloom is somehow screwing with the materials.
When her whole body glows like that, it makes me think her clothes are actually made of metal or something. Because no way normal clothing is that reflective/shiny to expose a whole picture like that.
Here's an example of a real photo that doesn't show any signs of that.
But it's not just lit materials I feel bloom is wrong, but also light sources themselves.
When taken by a decent camera, none of that craziness is present. Yet some games treat lightsources like they're suppose to be super bright as shit.
So now I ask, has there been any real discussion within tech circles about whether bloom is actual good or bad for making convincing images or if it can still be improved? Because now I feel I'm at a point where I just want to turn it off completely.
Bloom isn't new of course, it's been used as early as the PS2 days. But I can't shake this feeling that after reading Marmoset's article on PBR and doing tons of personal photography, that the bloom found in games just make things look more unrealistic then things really should be.
Here's an example. I was browsing 4gamer and came across a tech article for a new game. But look.
She's glowing! Now, why I mentioned PBR and photography in the beginning, I feel like bloom is somehow screwing with the materials.
When her whole body glows like that, it makes me think her clothes are actually made of metal or something. Because no way normal clothing is that reflective/shiny to expose a whole picture like that.
Here's an example of a real photo that doesn't show any signs of that.
But it's not just lit materials I feel bloom is wrong, but also light sources themselves.
When taken by a decent camera, none of that craziness is present. Yet some games treat lightsources like they're suppose to be super bright as shit.
So now I ask, has there been any real discussion within tech circles about whether bloom is actual good or bad for making convincing images or if it can still be improved? Because now I feel I'm at a point where I just want to turn it off completely.
Replies
To me the bloom is something like when you adjust the exposure settings and get burnt in bright colors. Also, you see "bloom" with your eyes if you look at something bright.
If you like super realistic images then turn it off.
Also I took a look at some photos and there is bloom on some of them, especially in out of focus places. I'm not really familiar with photography so I can't explain this, and don't know why its there, I just noticed it.
Both.
Exposure definitely exists. But I don't feel like that means objects/light sources are forced to turn glowy like in my game examples (this is where bloom comes in and I feel makes it worse).
Even the worst over exposed photos that turn up on on google image search doesn't show people glowing like the sun. But just really white backgrounds with still visible subjects.
In many games it is way overdone, but if done right it can add a nice softness to the image that you can't really get otherwise.
I don't have an exact comparison handy, but here's an example with no bloom on the right, and some bloom on the left. Not an exact on/off comparison, lots of other changes here too. But hopefully this shows what a little bloom can do.
Therefore I would say that yes, it is often overdone in games - but the effect itself is not to blame, just the use of it. "Blaming bloom" would be like stating that a given Photoshop blending mode is "wrong".
You can look up MGSV as an example of a game that looks razor sharp but also very convincing lighting wise.
You're not right for hating bloom; but you're right for hating the bloom-er.
Maybe we need to work on displays with more bit depth and actual higher dynamic range, as opposed to faking it with effects.
Pior's example image is using a diffraction filter which indiscriminately softens the image and reduces contrast, the end result is vaguely similar to a bloom post process, but it's not how bloom shaders typically work.
Bloom does not mimic a dirty camera lens. Dirt on a lens will generally only be visible certain circumstances, and will show up as dark spots, or as grimy detail when the lens hits a bright light source direct on. Dirt and even extensive damage to a lens can have relatively little effect on the resulting image: http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
Bloom does not mimic lens flare either, which is an effect based on directional light sources hitting the surface of the lens at specific angles, and has various interesting effects, including cool shapes and an overall reduction in contrast. See: https://vimeo.com/23687553
What about this?
What we see here is a combination of lens flare and volumetric fog effects. Yet again, not really bloom.
One physical effect that does resemble the bloom we see in games is what happens when you get moisture/fog in your lens:
However, I'm not sure why anyone would want to mimic this effect, and I doubt the goal with bloom is to do so.
If the goal is realism, bloom as it is commonly used in games makes little logical sense. It makes bright surfaces brighter even when the values are not actually that bright, like brightly colored clothing, bright paint colors, etc.
I think the only sensible use of bloom is to use a HDR brightness value, for instance, if values over .7 or so trigger the bloom effect, what you'll get is anything remotely bright glowing like a light source, which is simply illogical and does not happen with traditional photography or human eyes. If you use an HDR value, and say, only apply bloom to pixel values of 4 or brighter, then you can use it to make bright light sources glow, which has more of a basis in reality (though even here, a realistic lens flare effect would probably make more sense).
So here is an image to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Top: no bloom
Mid: bloom value adjusted so that normal bright surfaces do not bloom out, while very bright light sources (HDR values over 1) do.
Bottom: bloom applied to everything indiscriminately, a white painted surface looks as bright as a light source that is many magnitudes brighter.
Wouldn't using bloom be more efficient, especially with multiple lights(or emission textures), than volumetric fog and lens flares?
Yes, and that's why bloom is typically used. Not because it mimics a specific physical/optical phenomenon, but simply because it is cheap to render.
https://zarahdelhi.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/vintage-camera-effect/
It's a stylistic choice that can really set the mood.
I typically only like using Bloom on VFX or emmissive lights. Using bloom on regular cotton clothing makes no sense to me outside the context of a dream sequence.
From the same site, with more neutral lighting the effect is much less pronounced, whereas with bloom, it's pretty much always on. Bloom is a very simple effect and can't account for the direction of light rays/flare which is a primary component of this look.
It's worth noting that you can get a similar effect without any special filters, because again, the flare and lighting are the primary components:
Random image, you can find many more portraits in this style if you look taken with standard equipment. The flare reduces contrast as the light rays bounce around inside the lens, and the hair appears to glow not because of bloom or other special effects, but because hair is translucent/the significant difference in brightness values from the lit and shadowed side of the subject. A proper lens flare effect can give this look even when the light source is off screen, which is a nice bonus and something bloom can't do because it's a screen-space effect.
It's also worth mentioning that actually photographing this look requires being in a very specific spot with very specific lighting, in most lighting setups in games you would see this type of look probably less than 1% of the time, which makes the use of bloom to mimic this as a constant effect all the more illogical.
That's what it comes down to for me as well.
you're neither right or wrong to dislike bloom... it has been used to great effect in some games. but as Joe mentions it holds no real basis in reality, and it's easy to use it wrong and get bad results.
But seriously, I prefer more subtle integrations of it. It was terrrrible early last gen, but I think its mellowed out by now. (Sorry dont have any examples ATM)
Bloom occurs from light scattering either on the lens (humidity, dust, scratches, etc), or leaking light across the sensor/retina. Human eyes do this, this is why the sun "blooms" in your eye.
But all of this is fairly uncommon, except for very bright sources of light, and so overplaying the levels really only looks like the vaseline lens case, making it an almost purely stylistic choice. And as with all things purely stylistic, it's going to be hard not to abuse it.
In photographic terms, both phenomena are typically refereed to as one effect: lens flare.
That would explain why Unity's bloom effect also has lens flares. Huh, thank you.
I'll agree wholeheartedly that Oblivion's bloom looked pretty dumb. That's definitely something that you want to stay away from, and there are other games that definitely overdid bloom and lens flares, even going all the way back to Lego Racers 2. Just like any postprocessing, especially with game engines, it's better to use it sparingly and constantly question whether you're actually improving the quality of the image.
I'll hold the apparently controversial opinion that I loved/love the bloom in Oblivion, and I feel like it added to the mystical feel of the world it took place in. It's one of the games I think it worked for.
Also, Oblivion is old enough that I feel the bloom actually made it feel more advanced, graphically, than it really was.
So mystic. Much advanced.
Sorry I had to.