In article <3dcb8f48@news.povray.org>,
 Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

>   Not in a perfectly "frozen moment"...  ;) 

Hmm...in an animation, perhaps. Or if (as I mentioned before) there is 
some other way of telling it is in motion, which can be pretty difficult 
to do. Otherwise, it more often looks like the object is either hovering 
or just sitting still...the motion blur is a valuable visual cue.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
: In article <3dcb8f48@news.povray.org>,
:  Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
:
: >   Not in a perfectly "frozen moment"...  ;)
:
: Hmm...in an animation, perhaps. Or if (as I mentioned before) there is
: some other way of telling it is in motion, which can be pretty difficult
: to do. Otherwise, it more often looks like the object is either hovering
: or just sitting still...the motion blur is a valuable visual cue.
:
: --
: Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
: http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
: POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
: http://tag.povray.org/

Some high-speed photography shows a truly frozen
moment, yet the motion is pretty clear to me without
motion blur:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-c/splash-4.jpg

=Bob=

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dcc0579@news.povray.org>, "=Bob=" <bob### [at] threestrandscom> 
wrote:

> Some high-speed photography shows a truly frozen
> moment, yet the motion is pretty clear to me without
> motion blur:

Nice picture, but it quite clearly shows motion without blur. Not only 
is it an image that is instantly associated with movement, you can see 
that the droplets have just separated from the main body of the water.

Am I just not being clear enough? If you can use these elements (an 
image that is associated with motion, or the past and current effects of 
the motion on other objects) in your scene to show motion, motion blur 
isn't necessary to get a sense of movement. It isn't always easy or 
possible to do this though. I never said it was impossible to avoid 
using motion blur.
And motion blur isn't cheating or unrealistic: the human eye is not a 
high speed camera, what you see will be blurred. You can avoid blur for 
an interesting effect like that image shows, but it won't be more 
realistic.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> You could use it as a loop, and do other stuff besides simply 
> transforming the object. For example, you could make an isosurface 
> changing shape or a moving texture have motion blur, or even completely 
> change the type of object or remove some "copies" entirely. In normal 
> usage there was little difference, though.

  Ok, I used the word "transformed", which was unambiguous in this case.
I meant that the object is generated with a new clock value for each
ray (as it would be done for each frame of an animation). Of course the
object can be modified in many other ways using the clock value besides
using transformations (ie. translate, rotate, scale...).

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
: In article <3dcc0579@news.povray.org>, "=Bob=" <bob### [at] threestrandscom>
: wrote:
:
: > Some high-speed photography shows a truly frozen
: > moment, yet the motion is pretty clear to me without
: > motion blur:
:
: Nice picture, but it quite clearly shows motion without blur. Not only
: is it an image that is instantly associated with movement, you can see
: that the droplets have just separated from the main body of the water.
:
: Am I just not being clear enough?

I was agreeing with you...motion blur is not essential...
=Bob=

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Christopher James Huff wrote:
> 
>>You really need motion blur for a realistic effect...
> 
> 
>   Not in a perfectly "frozen moment"...  ;) 

This is true, but we're generally used to seeing motion blur in 
photography, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, a raytraced 
image is usually interpereted as a photograph would be.

I've had another idea for how I can portray motion without using motion 
blur, so I'll see how that works out.

Post a reply to this message