 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:12:22 -0300, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg>
wrote:
>> I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately.
>
You do?
>Don't worry .... you're not the only one!
>
>Kind of like a bad soap opera ... huh?
Like at a dinner party where there is an argument.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> "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!
Yeah, what is it with people getting extra cranky lately?
> Kind of like a bad soap opera ... huh?
<cheezy organ cue>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:527s951fsg5ehlj62b18maa5crn5eplh86@4ax.com...
> Like at a dinner party where there is an argument.
ha-ha exactly ... i usually step outside for a smoke when that happens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:58:20 -0300, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg>
wrote:
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:527s951fsg5ehlj62b18maa5crn5eplh86@4ax.com...
>> Like at a dinner party where there is an argument.
>
>ha-ha exactly ... i usually step outside for a smoke when that happens
>
And come back with a chainsaw? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a9d73e8$1@news.povray.org...
> I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately. Maybe my meds aren't
> working right or something.
Oh dear! From what I said? I am really sorry Sam, because I just wanted to
have some opinions about the use of motion blur, nothing more. I am not
arguing or wanting to (I am not that kind of guy). So, don't take it wrong.
I suppose writing is always more ambiguous when feelings are concerned,
especially when not a native speaker....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message
news:4a9f8169$1@news.povray.org...
> I am not arguing or wanting to (I am not that kind of guy).
... agreed so perhaps I owe you an apology as well Thomas.
I saw a chance to comment on the over-all climate in these news groups
lately.
I have nothing but repect for your work and how you conduct yourself as a
contributor.
Mea Culpa
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a9fe416@news.povray.org...
> I have nothing but repect for your work and how you conduct yourself as a
> contributor.
hopefully everyone knows I meant type "respect" and NOT repect (hey is that
even a word?) .... and I thought I'd follow up before the spelling sheriff
issued a warrant for my arrest ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4a9d73e8$1@news.povray.org...
>> I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately. Maybe my meds aren't
>> working right or something.
>
> Oh dear! From what I said? I am really sorry Sam, because I just wanted to
> have some opinions about the use of motion blur, nothing more. I am not
> arguing or wanting to (I am not that kind of guy). So, don't take it wrong.
> I suppose writing is always more ambiguous when feelings are concerned,
> especially when not a native speaker....
Apology accepted :) I'm sorry to you as well, for practically accusing
you of making me feel bad. It just seems like everybody has been a
little too critical of other people around here these days. It gets to a
point where it's like everybody is trying to make me feel bad... but it
must be my mind set.
I can understand how it feels to not be a native speaker. Even though I
grew up in America, I was told constantly as a child that, "kids are to
be seen and not heard." This screwed up my ability to communicate well
and I've been overcompensating for it all my life. Sometimes I truly
feel alien...
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:4aa029f4@news.povray.org...
> Apology accepted :) I'm sorry to you as well, for practically accusing you
> of making me feel bad. It just seems like everybody has been a little too
> critical of other people around here these days. It gets to a point where
> it's like everybody is trying to make me feel bad... but it must be my
> mind set.
Well, I should have used a couple more smileys I think :-) I got carried
away (which happens once in a while...)
You know Sam, there seem to be periods when people seem to be more nervous
and tend to come over harsher than they maybe want to in the first place. It
has been said here before, but the absence of body language makes things
more tricky, so what evolves into an argument would not have done so in the
physical presence of the speakers. And where you are concerned, don't feel
bad at all! You are doing absolutely great things and are an inspiration to
many of us.
>
> I can understand how it feels to not be a native speaker. Even though I
> grew up in America, I was told constantly as a child that, "kids are to be
> seen and not heard." This screwed up my ability to communicate well and
> I've been overcompensating for it all my life. Sometimes I truly feel
> alien...
Yes, that is really sad. I fully understand, although my personal experience
was not as strong as yours apparently and a bit different (I grew up in the
shadow of an older brother). Overcompensating is not always a bad thing I
believe, Sometimes it gives the opportunity to say/shout: This is me! Here
am I! Can be very healthy... (frustrating when nobody listens)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't worry Jim, I do not feel hurt :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "stbenge" <not### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4a9d73e8$1@news.povray.org...
> > I get a bad feeling from everyone here lately. Maybe my meds aren't
> > working right or something.
I've been getting that same feeling Sam. Maybe I just *need* some meds ;)
> Oh dear! From what I said? I am really sorry Sam, because I just wanted to
> have some opinions about the use of motion blur, nothing more. I am not
> arguing or wanting to (I am not that kind of guy). So, don't take it wrong.
> I suppose writing is always more ambiguous when feelings are concerned,
> especially when not a native speaker....
>
> Thomas
And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
I think the MegaPov glow (or something similar) would also be great for
volumetric lighting, etc., without enduring long media render times.
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor schrieb:
> And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
implementing it.
Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Robert McGregor schrieb:
> > And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> > in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> > this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
>
> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
>
> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
> implementing it.
Oops, my misinterpretation. Well, I'm having a look at it myself anyway...
> Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
Haha, I agree; I'm sure you have other things to do in your life besides writing
code :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4aa1875c7bf292d84726e92b0@news.povray.org...
>
>> Heck, I can't implement /everything/ :-P
>
> Haha, I agree; I'm sure you have other things to do in your life besides
> writing
> code :)
Sometimes I wonder if Christoph has another life besides writing code....
:-)
But I agree with him. He is already doing a great job on 3.7
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> Sometimes I wonder if Christoph has another life besides writing code....
> :-)
Hm... given that in my daytime job I'm a software developer, too - well,
not much I guess :-P
No, seriously, I also occasionally do some active racing... you know,
that stuff where it's all about speed - what's it called again? Rate...
Reight... Raytracing - yeah, that was the name :-D
I guess I'm actually a bit of a workaholic, with puzzles being my
poison, and software development tends to give me ample of that.
> But I agree with him. He is already doing a great job on 3.7
Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Robert McGregor schrieb:
> > And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
> > in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
> > this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
> implementing it.
Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
middle ground. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:4aa23e9f@news.povray.org...
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
Lol! Good point.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Robert McGregor schrieb:
>>> And I agree 100% Thomas, MegaPov motion blur is wonderful and I'd love to see it
>>> in 3.7 (and I didn't realize Clipka was so anti-motion-blur when I mentioned
>>> this to him over in the tc-rtc forums earlier this week).
>
>> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
>
>> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
>> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
>> implementing it.
>
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
>
I'm for it... when, and if, it actualy ADD something interesting to a scene.
But, as for focal blur, you must be realy carefull about not overdoing it.
Motion blur for the sake of motion blur is just baaaaaaaad!
So, I can apréciate it without, ether, loving nor hating it.
Case proven: There IS a middle ground :P
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
You're talking about motion blur as an artistic device, or an integrated
motion blur feature in POV-Ray?
We were talking about the latter until now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I'm for it... when, and if, it actualy ADD something interesting to a scene.
> But, as for focal blur, you must be realy carefull about not overdoing it.
> Motion blur for the sake of motion blur is just baaaaaaaad!
One could take a rather different view. For example: "Saying that motion
blur for the sake of motion blur is just bad is as silly as saying that
lighting just for the sake of lighting, or texturing just for the sake of
texturing, is bad. Like those, motion blur is a visual tool. Just because
it's used doesn't automatically make it good or bad."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> > middle ground. ;)
> You're talking about motion blur as an artistic device, or an integrated
> motion blur feature in POV-Ray?
It was humor. Not to be taken literally nor seriously.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:05:23 -0400, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>
>I'm for it... when, and if, it actualy ADD something interesting to a scene.
>But, as for focal blur, you must be realy carefull about not overdoing it.
>Motion blur for the sake of motion blur is just baaaaaaaad!
>
>So, I can apréciate it without, ether, loving nor hating it.
>Case proven: There IS a middle ground :P
I agree with you, Alain. Some scenes would be enhanced with it. Some animations
too IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
>
I can't make up my mind. In some cases it makes no sense, in other
cases, it works well.
I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Did I say I was /anti/-motion-blur?
>
>> I just said I could go without - as proven with my TC-RTC shot - and
>> that therefore I wouldn't be the one to pick up the challenge of
>> implementing it.
>
> Either you passionately love motion blur, or you hate it. There's no
> middle ground. ;)
So you can't blur both positions? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
> Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
> do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
> So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
> Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
With internal support the rendertime can be considerably faster because
only the moving parts are rendered many times, not the whole image. With
the averaging-frames trick you'll have to render the entire image for each
frame, and additionally you need some software to post-process the result.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't really know if it needs to be included in POV-Ray, though.
> > Rigging up an animation, and averaging the frames isn't that tough to
> > do, and you'd still need to rig the animation to do it properly anyway.
> > So, it just takes the step of averaging the images out.
>
> > Unless, of course, I'm seriously missing something here.
>
> With internal support the rendertime can be considerably faster because
> only the moving parts are rendered many times, not the whole image. With
> the averaging-frames trick you'll have to render the entire image for each
> frame, and additionally you need some software to post-process the result.
>
> --
> - Warp
Exactly Warp, that's why MegaPov is so handy - if you want to spin an airplane
prop it renders only that specific area and averages the result automatically.
I spent a couple of hours with the motion blur code last night and made some
good progress. But I found that Chris and Thorsten have made some changes to
the base code in migrating to multithreaded C++ classes (big improvement
guys!), so it stalled me a bit. Some of the old functions were transitioned
into class methods with similar names, so no big deal. But some of them (and
even whole files, e.g., lighting.cpp) have disappeared completely, so looks
like I'll need to spend a few nights reviewing the changes so I can get a
handle on the new pipeline.
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor schrieb:
> so looks
> like I'll need to spend a few nights reviewing the changes so I can get a
> handle on the new pipeline.
That sounds promising :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
