I'm not sure if this should be posted over in p.u.p, so apologies if I'm
wrong posting here.

I have been experimenting with motion blur in MegaPOV ( see anim in p.b.a ),
and so far so good.
But... what if I want to move just the camera? My experiments seemed to show
that the camera movements were not taken into account within the motion
blur. I tried placing the camera statement within a motion_blur {}
statement, but received an error.

Am I doing something wrong? I would like to animated motion_blurred camera
fly-throughs.

All the best,

Andy Cocker


---------------------------------------------------------------
www.mariner9.net

..... for my music and graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.

Post a reply to this message

Andy Cocker wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if this should be posted over in p.u.p, so apologies if I'm
> wrong posting here.
> 
> I have been experimenting with motion blur in MegaPOV ( see anim in p.b.a ),
> and so far so good.
> But... what if I want to move just the camera? My experiments seemed to show
> that the camera movements were not taken into account within the motion
> blur. I tried placing the camera statement within a motion_blur {}
> statement, but received an error.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? I would like to animated motion_blurred camera
> fly-throughs.
> 

when you only want camera *movements*, you could simulate them by moving all
objects in the scene (at least as i understand motion blur).  I you want to
change the camera angle, this does no more work of course.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39F1DD3A.133D3770@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...

> when you only want camera *movements*, you could simulate them by moving
all
> objects in the scene (at least as i understand motion blur).  I you want
to
> change the camera angle, this does no more work of course.

Yeah, that's basically what I had to do in my animation. It's a very
restrictive way of working... I wonder if there's any possibility that this
could be changed?

All the best,

Andy Cocker

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.mariner9.net

..... for my music and graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.

Post a reply to this message

"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote...
> "Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
> message news:39F1DD3A.133D3770@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
> > when you only want camera *movements*, you could simulate them by moving
> all
> > objects in the scene (at least as i understand motion blur).  I you want
> to
> > change the camera angle, this does no more work of course.
>
> Yeah, that's basically what I had to do in my animation. It's a very
> restrictive way of working... I wonder if there's any possibility that
this
> could be changed?

Ideally, camera motion blur would be done differently than object motion
blur.  Object motion blur (as implemented in MegaPov) increases speed while
also increasing memory usage.  It does this by making multiple copies of the
object (one for each time sample).  That way, multiple rays only need to be
traced where they will intersect a motion-blurred object.

With camera motion blur, on the other hand, you would need to trace multiple
rays for every pixel in the image.  Therefore, the way MegaPov does it would
only waste memory and not give any speed advantage.  Therefore, camera
motion blur should be implemented by tracing the scene multiple times and
averaging the images.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Okay, thanks Nathan. I was just hoping that it could all be done internally.

All the best,

Andy Cocker

--------------------------------------------------------------
www.mariner9.net

..... for my music and graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.
"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:39f252dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote...
> > "Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
> > message news:39F1DD3A.133D3770@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
> >
> > > when you only want camera *movements*, you could simulate them by
moving
> > all
> > > objects in the scene (at least as i understand motion blur).  I you
want
> > to
> > > change the camera angle, this does no more work of course.
> >
> > Yeah, that's basically what I had to do in my animation. It's a very
> > restrictive way of working... I wonder if there's any possibility that
> this
> > could be changed?
>
> Ideally, camera motion blur would be done differently than object motion
> blur.  Object motion blur (as implemented in MegaPov) increases speed
while
> also increasing memory usage.  It does this by making multiple copies of
the
> object (one for each time sample).  That way, multiple rays only need to
be
> traced where they will intersect a motion-blurred object.
>
> With camera motion blur, on the other hand, you would need to trace
multiple
> rays for every pixel in the image.  Therefore, the way MegaPov does it
would
> only waste memory and not give any speed advantage.  Therefore, camera
> motion blur should be implemented by tracing the scene multiple times and
> averaging the images.
>
> -Nathan
>
>

Post a reply to this message