"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> That's very nice! The focal-blur trick seems to work quite well; I can't 'see'
> any of the 'static-position' blur noise you mentioned. I assume you *averaged* a
> bunch of frames together for each motion-blurred one. (That's the way I do it.)
> How many individual frames per final frame?

There's 10 frames blended together into each frame.

The static blur isn't obvious with the camera moving around so much, but if you
pause it you'll see that the motion blur looks quite smooth compared to the very
noisy focal blur. This is despite the fact that I used 2 samples for focal blur,
so it should look twice as smooth. The problem is that the 2 samples are nearly
always in the same place (despite me messing with bokeh to try to seperate
them), so the finished shot only looks as good as about 4 blur samples, rather
than the 20 I wanted.

I'm honestly tempted to render the scene bigger and jiggle the camera around
using a non-orthogonal matrix, to effectively create my desired image at a
different 2D position every frame, which I can then crop to remove the jiggle,
thereby randomising the focal blur samples. But it's kind of an ugly work round
to change what is, after all, just a random seed.

Post a reply to this message