>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software)
Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.
Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.
Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l...
ie hobbyists have very low standards.
I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount.
Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF.
Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis.