On 6 Sep 1998 09:26:38 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi>
wrote:

>Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>: What do you recommend as a maximum object translation
>: from scene to scene. I tried a ten frame image last night
>: that failed miserably. I owe it primarily to too much spacing
>: between the moving objects in the scene and wondered if you
>: had a good feel for a recommended amount.
>
>  This question was not an answer to my post, but being the author of the
>averager program maybe I could express my opinion?-)
>  Common sense says to me that the object which I want to be motion blurred
>shouldn't move more than 1 pixel from frame to frame. As far as I have tested,
>this gives very good results. Even better results can be achieved by moving
>the object less than 1 pixel each frame.
>  The total amount of movement is up to what do you want to. More movement
>looks like the object is moving faster (more frames, more blurring), and less
>movement looks like it's moving slower (less blurring).
>  For the image http://iki.fi/warp/pics/Takeoff.jpg I calculated 40 frames
>(man, it was slow with my 486 66MHz!).
>
>-- 
>                                                           - Warp. -

For high quality still images, I agree with Warp totally. If you are
creating an animation with a fairly high framerate, I think you might
get by with coarser steps in movement. It's sort of cheating, but the
typical viewer might not notice during an animation.

If I'm not mistaken, that high-end rendering program that was used in
Toy Story, typically uses relatively coarse motion blur for
animations. I once read a usenet post from one of the engineers that
admitted it wouldn't work so well for still images.   :)

Later,

Glen Berry

Home -> http://www.ezwv.com/~mclilith/index.html
IMP  -> http://www.algonet.se/~jhubert/MovieProject/index.html

To reply via personal email, remove the "X" from Xno### [at] ezwvcom

Post a reply to this message