 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> Why 15! ?
>
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
> and not X! ?
Hmm. Your knowledge of combinatorics clearly exceeds mine
considerably... :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> Why 15! ?
>
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
> and not X! ?
Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense. A->B and
B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible
combinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
>> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
>> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.
My point is that there seem to be several morphs for each loop, meaning
that the number of morphs dawfs the number of actual loops...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense.
Yes they can. But MPEG-2 doesn't make that real easy...
> A->B and
> B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible
> combinations.
They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must be.
(However, ES seems to implement it this way.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense.
> Yes they can. But MPEG-2 doesn't make that real easy...
I know MPEG doesn't make it easy, but they wouldn't make sense anyway-
Try it. Make a video of A, A, B->A backwards, B, B. See if the morph
looks OK.
>> A->B and B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted
>> all possible combinations.
>
> They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must be.
> (However, ES seems to implement it this way.)
In the way ES works, the loop is "rotating". The morph is interpolating
sheep A to sheep B and *also* rotating. If you play it backwards, it
would be rotating backwards, and the sudden jump in "direction" is
really noticeable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> Try it. Make a video of A, A, B->A backwards, B, B. See if the morph
> looks OK.
Actually, don't. I'll try to do it for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must
>> be. (However, ES seems to implement it this way.)
>
> In the way ES works, the loop is "rotating". The morph is interpolating
> sheep A to sheep B and *also* rotating. If you play it backwards, it
> would be rotating backwards, and the sudden jump in "direction" is
> really noticeable.
I see. So there's a discontinuity in the 1st derivative then? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I used to, but stopped because the MPEG video showing at fullscreen
> (plus the fact that you may end up rendering frames for them) needs some
> CPU time.
<I'm old>
I can remember when decoding MPEG-1 in realtime required specialised
hardware - and encoding required a very high-end computer system!
And today, my PC is decoding MPEG-2 in realtime using idle CPU cycles...
How times have changed!
</I'm old>
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> I see. So there's a discontinuity in the 1st derivative then? ;-)
>
On the What?
o_0
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
