Personally, I would be interested to have 'motion blur' (available in 
megapov) included into version 3.7.

What do you think?

-- 
All the best,

Thomas

"Sic vive, tanquam cras moriturus,
sic stude, quasi semper victurus."
Desiderius Erasmus

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> Personally, I would be interested to have 'motion blur' (available in 
> megapov) included into version 3.7.
> 
> What do you think?

I can do without (as proven in the "Dragons" TC-RTC round :-P).

But if someone would want to implement it, I wouldn't want to discourage 
them either.

(Not me though - that's quite a definite.)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a9106ea$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I can do without (as proven in the "Dragons" TC-RTC round :-P).

Yes, I noticed indeed. I think I know how you did that... :-)

>
> But if someone would want to implement it, I wouldn't want to discourage 
> them either.
>
> (Not me though - that's quite a definite.)

Unfortunately, not me either :-(  it is beyond my capacities.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
>> (Not me though - that's quite a definite.)
> 
> Unfortunately, not me either :-(  it is beyond my capacities.

Hm... I thought about it: Aside from doing motion blur, I guess the 
mechanism could also be used to create objects which are transparent, 
yet at the same time completely opaque with respect to themselves (if 
you get the meaning), which would make for a great mechanism to render 
"dreams" or "ghosts" into an image.

Which is something I'm probably more in for than motion blur.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Personally, I would be interested to have 'motion blur' (available in 
> megapov) included into version 3.7.
> 
> What do you think?

I could take it or leave it, since there is a way which works quite well 
already. You probably know about it. You render a bunch of frames and 
simply average them together in another scene. You can get away with 
only rendering the motion-blurred object many times, while leaving the 
rest of the scene untouched since POV can read partial images. 
Everything can be spliced together using boxes and an orthographic 
camera, or rendered into the actual scene geometry using Rune's 
illusion.inc (which is harder).

It's not really easy, and setting up a scene in this manner can be 
cumbersome.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> You can get away with
> only rendering the motion-blurred object many times,

That is how MegaPOV does it.

Post a reply to this message

"stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a92eb8c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I could take it or leave it, since there is a way which works quite well 
> already. You probably know about it. You render a bunch of frames and 
> simply average them together in another scene. You can get away with only 
> rendering the motion-blurred object many times, while leaving the rest of 
> the scene untouched since POV can read partial images. Everything can be 
> spliced together using boxes and an orthographic camera, or rendered into 
> the actual scene geometry using Rune's illusion.inc (which is harder).
>
> It's not really easy, and setting up a scene in this manner can be 
> cumbersome.

Yes indeed, and that is why the Motion Blur patch in Megapov is so easy to 
use: it does exactly that all by itself without interference from outside.

So, why do it the hard way when it can be done in a simple straightforward 
way?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a924424$1@news.povray.org...
> Hm... I thought about it: Aside from doing motion blur, I guess the 
> mechanism could also be used to create objects which are transparent, yet 
> at the same time completely opaque with respect to themselves (if you get 
> the meaning), which would make for a great mechanism to render "dreams" or 
> "ghosts" into an image.
>
> Which is something I'm probably more in for than motion blur.

Ghosts would be great too... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a92eb8c$1@news.povray.org...
>> I could take it or leave it, since there is a way which works quite well 
>> already. You probably know about it. You render a bunch of frames and 
>> simply average them together in another scene. You can get away with only 
>> rendering the motion-blurred object many times, while leaving the rest of 
>> the scene untouched since POV can read partial images. Everything can be 
>> spliced together using boxes and an orthographic camera, or rendered into 
>> the actual scene geometry using Rune's illusion.inc (which is harder).
>>
>> It's not really easy, and setting up a scene in this manner can be 
>> cumbersome.
> 
> Yes indeed, and that is why the Motion Blur patch in Megapov is so easy to 
> use: it does exactly that all by itself without interference from outside.

I did not know that...

> So, why do it the hard way when it can be done in a simple straightforward 
> way?

Because you need to finish a render *now*, and can't wait for it to be 
implemented?

I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately. Maybe my meds aren't 
working right or something.

Post a reply to this message

"stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4a9d73e8$1@news.povray.org...
> I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately.

Don't worry .... you're not the only one!

Kind of like a bad soap opera ... huh?

Post a reply to this message