 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dcbd026@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg>
wrote:
> Wrong. The patch did not add any transparency anywhere. It simply traced
> the same object several times, transforming the object with the given
> transformations at each sample, and then averaged the results.
By "how the patch actually did its work" I was referring to the multiple
copies part, which *is* what the patch did. It didn't trace one object
multiple times, it traced multiple copies of the object.
> This gives a lot more realistic result. Using semitransparent objects
> will give you unrealistic results. For instance, using semitransparent
> objects will make the interior of the object partially visible, which is
> usually very unwanted.
Which is why I said "most correct" results instead of "correct" results.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but this is just a way to imitate
the blur effect without a patch.
--
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:
> It didn't trace one object
> multiple times, it traced multiple copies of the object.
The practical difference being...?-)
What I meant was that it traces the object as-is, without modifying the
surface properties of the object (eg. making it partially transparent).
> Which is why I said "most correct" results instead of "correct" results.
> Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but this is just a way to imitate
> the blur effect without a patch.
It's just that from your post one could get the idea that the suggested
solution is exactly what the MegaPov patch did but just internally and a
bit faster. It's not like that.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dcbddde@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> > It didn't trace one object
> > multiple times, it traced multiple copies of the object.
> The practical difference being...?-)
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.
> What I meant was that it traces the object as-is, without modifying the
> surface properties of the object (eg. making it partially transparent).
Right, I didn't mean to imply that it did.
> It's just that from your post one could get the idea that the suggested
> solution is exactly what the MegaPov patch did but just internally and a
> bit faster. It's not like that.
Hmm...I didn't intend that. Sorry.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Use those elements of composition that imply movement. An automobile
viewed head on in an orthographic projection in the exact center of the
image does **not** imply movement.
Avoid tacking blurring special effects.
"Matt Walton" <mat### [at] alledoracouk> wrote in message
news:3dcaf724$1@news.povray.org...
>
> So, are there any other ways to indicate movement of an object?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
