 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "stbenge" <not### [at] hotmail com> schreef in bericht
> news:4a9d73e8$1@news.povray.org...
> > I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately. Maybe my meds aren't
> > working right or something.
I've been getting that same feeling Sam. Maybe I just *need* some meds ;)
> Oh dear! From what I said? I am really sorry Sam, because I just wanted to
> have some opinions about the use of motion blur, nothing more. I am not
> arguing or wanting to (I am not that kind of guy). So, don't take it wrong.
> I suppose writing is always more ambiguous when feelings are concerned,
> especially when not a native speaker....
>
> Thomas
And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
I think the MegaPov glow (or something similar) would also be great for
volumetric lighting, etc., without enduring long media render times.
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor schrieb:
> And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
implementing it.
Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Robert McGregor schrieb:
> > And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> > in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> > this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
>
> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
>
> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
> implementing it.
Oops, my misinterpretation. Well, I'm having a look at it myself anyway...
> Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
Haha, I agree; I'm sure you have other things to do in your life besides writing
code :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4aa1875c7bf292d84726e92b0@news.povray.org...
>
>> Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
>
> Haha, I agree; I'm sure you have other things to do in your life besides
> writing
> code :)
Sometimes I wonder if Christoph has another life besides writing code....
:-)
But I agree with him. He is already doing a great job on 3.7
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> Sometimes I wonder if Christoph has another life besides writing code....
> :-)
Hm... given that in my daytime job I'm a software developer, too - well,
not much I guess :-P
No, seriously, I also occasionally do some active racing... you know,
that stuff where it's all about speed - what's it called again? Rate...
Reight... Raytracing - yeah, that was the name :-D
I guess I'm actually a bit of a workaholic, with puzzles being my
poison, and software development tends to give me ample of that.
> But I agree with him. He is already doing a great job on 3.7
Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Robert McGregor schrieb:
> > And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> > in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> > this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
> implementing it.
Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
middle ground. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:4aa23e9f@news.povray.org...
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
Lol! Good point.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Robert McGregor schrieb:
>>> And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
>>> in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
>>> this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
>
>> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
>
>> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
>> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
>> implementing it.
>
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
>
I'm for it... when, and if, it actualy ADD something interesting to a scene.
But, as for focal blur, you must be realy carefull about not overdoing it.
Motion blur for the sake of motion blur is just baaaaaaaad!
Case proven: There IS a middle ground :P
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
You're talking about motion blur as an artistic device, or an integrated
motion blur feature in POV-Ray?
We were talking about the latter until now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I'm for it... when, and if, it actualy ADD something interesting to a scene.
> But, as for focal blur, you must be realy carefull about not overdoing it.
> Motion blur for the sake of motion blur is just baaaaaaaad!
One could take a rather different view. For example: "Saying that motion
blur for the sake of motion blur is just bad is as silly as saying that
lighting just for the sake of lighting, or texturing just for the sake of
texturing, is bad. Like those, motion blur is a visual tool. Just because
it's used doesn't automatically make it good or bad."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
