Rune wrote:
> 
> If the camera moves, you cannot get correct results with MegaPOV, so it does
> not make sense to compare the render times in that case.
> 

IIRC you can get correct results by putting your entire scene in an union and
moving it instead of the camera.

> Please explain why. As I see it you need the same amount of samples to get
> the same amount of smoothness. So you would indeed have to use 25 times more
> images (which will always be slower because non-blurred objects are also
> rendered extra times).

You're right, of course. I should have seen the bug in my logic already from
your previous post :( Strangely enough it never occurred to me to associate FPS
with camera shutter time...
Of course in practice, the motion blur effect is often exaggerated for artistic
purposes. And if shutter time is greater than clock_delta you _can_ reuse old
inter-frame samples and thus get by with less samples overall. E.g. if shutter
time is 2 x clock_delta you need 1/2 the amount of samples compared to MegaPOV
motion_blur.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message