Okay, thanks Nathan. I was just hoping that it could all be done internally.

All the best,

Andy Cocker

--------------------------------------------------------------
www.mariner9.net

..... for my music and graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.
"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:39f252dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote...
> > "Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
> > message news:39F1DD3A.133D3770@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
> >
> > > when you only want camera *movements*, you could simulate them by
moving
> > all
> > > objects in the scene (at least as i understand motion blur).  I you
want
> > to
> > > change the camera angle, this does no more work of course.
> >
> > Yeah, that's basically what I had to do in my animation. It's a very
> > restrictive way of working... I wonder if there's any possibility that
> this
> > could be changed?
>
> Ideally, camera motion blur would be done differently than object motion
> blur.  Object motion blur (as implemented in MegaPov) increases speed
while
> also increasing memory usage.  It does this by making multiple copies of
the
> object (one for each time sample).  That way, multiple rays only need to
be
> traced where they will intersect a motion-blurred object.
>
> With camera motion blur, on the other hand, you would need to trace
multiple
> rays for every pixel in the image.  Therefore, the way MegaPov does it
would
> only waste memory and not give any speed advantage.  Therefore, camera
> motion blur should be implemented by tracing the scene multiple times and
> averaging the images.
>
> -Nathan
>
>

Post a reply to this message