 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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?
It was humor. Not to be taken literally nor seriously.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:05:23 -0400, 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!
>
>Case proven: There IS a middle ground :P
I agree with you, Alain. Some scenes would be enhanced with it. Some animations
too IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
>
I can't make up my mind. In some cases it makes no sense, in other
cases, it works well.
I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> 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. ;)
So you can't blur both positions? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
> Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
> do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
> So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
> Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
With internal support the rendertime can be considerably faster because
only the moving parts are rendered many times, not the whole image. With
the averaging-frames trick you'll have to render the entire image for each
frame, and additionally you need some software to post-process the result.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
> > Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
> > do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
> > So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
>
> > Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
>
> With internal support the rendertime can be considerably faster because
> only the moving parts are rendered many times, not the whole image. With
> the averaging-frames trick you'll have to render the entire image for each
> frame, and additionally you need some software to post-process the result.
>
> --
> - Warp
Exactly Warp, that's why MegaPov is so handy - if you want to spin an airplane
prop it renders only that specific area and averages the result automatically.
I spent a couple of hours with the motion blur code last night and made some
good progress. But I found that Chris and Thorsten have made some changes to
the base code in migrating to multithreaded C++ classes (big improvement
guys!), so it stalled me a bit. Some of the old functions were transitioned
into class methods with similar names, so no big deal. But some of them (and
even whole files, e.g., lighting.cpp) have disappeared completely, so looks
like I'll need to spend a few nights reviewing the changes so I can get a
handle on the new pipeline.
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor schrieb:
> so looks
> like I'll need to spend a few nights reviewing the changes so I can get a
> handle on the new pipeline.
That sounds promising :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
