By blurring the background. Your basically lessening the need to render and reduce resolutions. So it would logically make sense for the increase of the games FPS. However it seems it turning on does oddly the opposite? And I wanna know why that is
In: 48
Imagine an artist painting a landscape scene on a canvas who wants to implement focus, and knows objects too near or too far need to be blurrier than the ones at the optimal focus distance. But the only skill this artist knows for how to do that is to just paint everything with all the same crisp detail first, then slightly blur some of those things later by lightly wiping across them with a dry brush while the paint is still not quite dry.
That’s *sort of* what the graphics card does when it’s making distant objects be “out of focus”.
The math it has to do to know where to draw a polygon on screen doesn’t go away just because that polygon will get made fuzzy in post-processing later.
If it did work like you say, where distant things are rendered at lower resolution than near things it might speed it up, but that’s not really easy to do because resolution of the 3-D frame buffer is, well, a 3-D volume grid. It has to be the same dimensions all the way through.
That means, if you are rendering on screen at 3840 x 2160 pixels, then ALL the slices of the volume of space that are used to calculate the positions of things have to be 3840 x 2160. Whether they’re 1 meter from the eye or 1000 meters from the eye.
The one thing you could do to speed it up would be if the programmers decided to have lower-res textures used to paint farther objects. They’re still being painted on the same 3840 x 2160 canvas, but since a distant object uses fewer pixels of that canvas by virtue of taking up less of the field of view, you don’t need as detailed a texture loaded onto them. But the thing is… this is already being done even if you didn’t turn on Depth of Field, so turning on Depth of Field doesn’t reduce things any further in this regard.
Latest Answers