In article <3dcc0579@news.povray.org>, "=Bob=" <bob### [at] threestrandscom> 
wrote:

> Some high-speed photography shows a truly frozen
> moment, yet the motion is pretty clear to me without
> motion blur:

Nice picture, but it quite clearly shows motion without blur. Not only 
is it an image that is instantly associated with movement, you can see 
that the droplets have just separated from the main body of the water.

Am I just not being clear enough? If you can use these elements (an 
image that is associated with motion, or the past and current effects of 
the motion on other objects) in your scene to show motion, motion blur 
isn't necessary to get a sense of movement. It isn't always easy or 
possible to do this though. I never said it was impossible to avoid 
using motion blur.
And motion blur isn't cheating or unrealistic: the human eye is not a 
high speed camera, what you see will be blurred. You can avoid blur for 
an interesting effect like that image shows, but it won't be more 
realistic.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message