Doug n' Dinsdale wrote in message <364FF2DA.B4E60860@networx.net.au>...
>I'm not actually doing a scene that involves motion blur, I was just
>wondering. The other side of the coin then is what about a patched version
of
>povray (ie source code modifacation) as there was a scene (admitedly
stills)
>that I belive won a round. What is the difference between a GUI Ext and a
>source mod, besides the obvious.
>
>I respect your opinion but I just feel that this question needs answering
now
>before it becomes a problem.

Can't you model it directly as an object? I am working on a still that has
motion blur, and
it is done by using multiple transparent copies of an object. Sure it takes
longer to render,
but it is completeley POV (no patches even) and doesn't require any extra
software

Chris Jeppesen

>
>Ken wrote:
>
>> Doug n' Dinsdale wrote:
>>
>> > Here's a good question. I just downloaded a PovRay GUI Extension the
>> > implimented motion blur. My question is this... would it be a violation
>> > of rules (more specificly the post-processing one) to use this in an
>> > animation or still.
>> >
>> > It was the DigiTape extension.
>>
>>   I hate to be the voice of gloom but it would seem to me that although
>> the implementation is different it is very much like the many image
>> filtering effects tools used in paint programs. If you could utilize
>> the blurred images to produce an animation it still is using post
>> image manipulation for an effect that was not an implemented feature
>> of the raytracing package you are using. The intent of the rule is to
>> cause you to use your skills and imagination to get the effects you
>> need using the software provided and features of what that software
>> provides. Many raytracing effects can be simulated in 2D paint packages
>> but are not what the irtc is all about.
>>
>> These are my opinions and yours may very.
>>
>> Ken Tyler
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message