> Yes, this should be better, but will povray interact well with the idea? I mean
> povray will surely be able to make n transparent objects, but will it accumulate
> the colors correctly?

Actually no... the objects are transparent, so we can see the interior of the
objects...  Isn't there a way to accumulate the colors instead?

I guess that for a real motionblur I would need a 3rdParty...

Thanks,
	Simon

Post a reply to this message

I had tried a crude method of motion blur for POV-Ray 3.* and the object
transparency (or opacity) had to be adjusted for allowing of the overlapped
object "clones".  The tendency, without adjustment, caused a brightening of
the filtered color.
It's of no use anymore, and was never really good anyhow, but a zip of the
files is at:
http://members.aol.com/xyzunknown/private/objmblur.zip

Bob

"Simon Lemieux" <lem### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39467FCB.E72A5375@yahoo.com...
| > Yes, this should be better, but will povray interact well with the idea? I
mean
| > povray will surely be able to make n transparent objects, but will it
accumulate
| > the colors correctly?
|
| Actually no... the objects are transparent, so we can see the interior of
the
| objects...  Isn't there a way to accumulate the colors instead?
|
| I guess that for a real motionblur I would need a 3rdParty...
|
| Thanks,
| Simon

Post a reply to this message

Simon Lemieux <lem### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
: Actually no... the objects are transparent, so we can see the interior of the
: objects...

  Yes, that's another bad thing I didn't think of. And it's a lot worse.

:  Isn't there a way to accumulate the colors instead?

  Yes, using the motion blur in MegaPov.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:39462e45@news.povray.org...
> Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
> :>   Putting one copy of the original object and several copies of
> : translucent
> :> objects doesn't give the correct result.
>
> :     Why not ?
>
>   Because all the "samples" have to contribute by the same amount. In this
> method you will have irregular distribution of the samples.
>
>   The correct way would be take n "samples" each one of them contributing
> 100/n % to the final color.
>   With only semi-transparent objects each object contributes less than
> 100/n %. Adding one instance of the non-transparent object makes the
result
> only worse.
>

    Yeah, now I think about it, that makes sense.

--
Scott Hill. (sco### [at] innocentcom)
Software Engineer.
Author of Pandora's Box (coming to a web page soon(ish)).

*Everything in this post is IMO.*

Post a reply to this message