Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
:     1. Multiple objects.

  The result will be wrong. Suppose that the object stays in its place.
With true motion blur it will not have any difference from a non-blurred
object. With this multiple object trick it will be a bit transparent.

-- 
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:394291e5@news.povray.org...
> Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
> :     1. Multiple objects.
>
>   The result will be wrong. Suppose that the object stays in its place.
> With true motion blur it will not have any difference from a non-blurred
> object. With this multiple object trick it will be a bit transparent.
>

    Well, I'd personally modify the number of clone objects according to the
distance an object moves - if it doesn't move it needs no clones. Besides,
surely because all the semi-transparent clones are just going to be exactly
over the non-transparent original this one will show through, making it
completely non-transparent.

--
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

Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
:     Well, I'd personally modify the number of clone objects according to the
: distance an object moves - if it doesn't move it needs no clones.

  My point was that the amount of transparency will not be correct even if
the object was moving. If the object does not move more than its own length,
there will always be non-transparent parts.

: Besides,
: surely because all the semi-transparent clones are just going to be exactly
: over the non-transparent original this one will show through, making it
: completely non-transparent.

  Putting one copy of the original object and several copies of translucent
objects doesn't give the correct result.

-- 
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:3944a980@news.povray.org...
> Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
> :     Well, I'd personally modify the number of clone objects according to
the
> : distance an object moves - if it doesn't move it needs no clones.
>
>   My point was that the amount of transparency will not be correct even if
> the object was moving. If the object does not move more than its own
length,
> there will always be non-transparent parts.
>

    Surely that's correct ?

> : Besides,
> : surely because all the semi-transparent clones are just going to be
exactly
> : over the non-transparent original this one will show through, making it
> : completely non-transparent.
>
>   Putting one copy of the original object and several copies of
translucent
> objects doesn't give the correct result.
>

    Why not ?

--
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

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.

-- 
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

> 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.

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?

Thanks,
	Simon

Post a reply to this message

> 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