G. Berry wrote:

> Go to my homepage listed below and download the short utility "Warp's
> Targa Averager" from my downloads page. It will produce a single
> averaged image from a multitude of initial targa images. There is no
> PSP required or anything else.
>
> My site has the Win95 console version of the utility, and there is a
> link to Warp's original site that has a DOS version. Original source
> code is included to port the utility to Linux or whatever one needs.
>
> An additional note: the utility can also create "delta images", which
> are the result of subtracting one image from another. This can be used
> on a series of animation frames in an attempt to reduce their storage
> requirements for lossless archiving, etc. The "delta frames" will need
> to be unconverted before being viewed normaly, but Warp's utility can
> also perform this restoration. This is a somewhat experimental
> feature, in that delta frames are not a standard storage format. Warp
> was nice enough to add that feature at my request, so I could perform
> some tests of delta frame effectiveness. With some animations, it does
> help reduce lossless storage requirements considerably when combined
> with lossless compression techniques.
>
> Later,
> Glen Berry
>
> Vice Project Coordinator
> The Internet Movie Project (IMP)
> Homepage: http://www.algonet.se/~jhubert/MovieProject/index.html
>
> To reply via personal email, remove the "X" from Xno### [at] ezwvcom

  Hey Glen,

What do you recommend as a maximum object translation
from scene to scene. I tried a ten frame image last night
that failed miserably. I owe it primarily to too much spacing
between the moving objects in the scene and wondered if you
had a good feel for a recommended amount.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: What do you recommend as a maximum object translation
: from scene to scene. I tried a ten frame image last night
: that failed miserably. I owe it primarily to too much spacing
: between the moving objects in the scene and wondered if you
: had a good feel for a recommended amount.

  This question was not an answer to my post, but being the author of the
averager program maybe I could express my opinion?-)
  Common sense says to me that the object which I want to be motion blurred
shouldn't move more than 1 pixel from frame to frame. As far as I have tested,
this gives very good results. Even better results can be achieved by moving
the object less than 1 pixel each frame.
  The total amount of movement is up to what do you want to. More movement
looks like the object is moving faster (more frames, more blurring), and less
movement looks like it's moving slower (less blurring).
  For the image http://iki.fi/warp/pics/Takeoff.jpg I calculated 40 frames
(man, it was slow with my 486 66MHz!).

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 1998 09:26:38 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi>
wrote:

>Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>: What do you recommend as a maximum object translation
>: from scene to scene. I tried a ten frame image last night
>: that failed miserably. I owe it primarily to too much spacing
>: between the moving objects in the scene and wondered if you
>: had a good feel for a recommended amount.
>
>  This question was not an answer to my post, but being the author of the
>averager program maybe I could express my opinion?-)
>  Common sense says to me that the object which I want to be motion blurred
>shouldn't move more than 1 pixel from frame to frame. As far as I have tested,
>this gives very good results. Even better results can be achieved by moving
>the object less than 1 pixel each frame.
>  The total amount of movement is up to what do you want to. More movement
>looks like the object is moving faster (more frames, more blurring), and less
>movement looks like it's moving slower (less blurring).
>  For the image http://iki.fi/warp/pics/Takeoff.jpg I calculated 40 frames
>(man, it was slow with my 486 66MHz!).
>
>-- 
>                                                           - Warp. -

For high quality still images, I agree with Warp totally. If you are
creating an animation with a fairly high framerate, I think you might
get by with coarser steps in movement. It's sort of cheating, but the
typical viewer might not notice during an animation.

If I'm not mistaken, that high-end rendering program that was used in
Toy Story, typically uses relatively coarse motion blur for
animations. I once read a usenet post from one of the engineers that
admitted it wouldn't work so well for still images.   :)

Later,

Glen Berry

Home -> http://www.ezwv.com/~mclilith/index.html
IMP  -> http://www.algonet.se/~jhubert/MovieProject/index.html

To reply via personal email, remove the "X" from Xno### [at] ezwvcom

Post a reply to this message