Bloom isn't about the brightness of a light, but rather the amount of particles in the air. Think of a light source on a foggy night vs a clear night. I agree that a lot of games overuse the effect though.
Bloom in games isn't really based on any sort of physical or optical camera effect. It's a simple post process that works by creating a copy of the rendered frame, blurring it, and then adding it back on top (usually resulting in bright areas becoming brighter). Pior's example image is using a diffraction filter which…
A lot of games overuse it, and make not-so-bright things blow out. But it's a great effect when used correctly, and it can add a lot of life to a scene. You're not right for hating bloom; but you're right for hating the bloom-er.
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…
Bloom mimics the way light is dispersed by a dirty camera lens. 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…
Bloom in my mind, is basically just a hack to simulate volumetric lighting in a very primitive way. 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.
Vasaline on a lens is similar, but you don't see the "bloom" like effect in all situations. 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…
I agree here. Bloom gets way overused, mostly because its practitioners haven't thought much about why (if ever) it actually occurs in real life. As EQ points out, "bloom" is NOT the same thing as lens flares or volumetric effects. This is often a point of confusion. Bloom occurs from light scattering either on the lens…
It may be important to note that when Jeff speaks of bloom in this context he's talking about it from a physics perspective, where bloom is diffusion of light and flare is reflection of light. In the following image, the glow around the sun would be bloom, while the repetitive shapes are ghosting from light reflected…