 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
in this animation the shape morphs between a square
and a sphere-function. Nothing special, but it shows
how it could work.
Greetings
Thies Heidecke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks like some kind of fade-over to me :-)
Maybe using some way of moving control points would produce more morph-like
animations. Imagine morphing 2dimensional pictures instead of fading them
from one into another. But this time it should be 3dimensional instead of
2dimensional :-)
regards,
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoo com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3c7dcd32$2@news.povray.org...
> Looks like some kind of fade-over to me :-)
> Maybe using some way of moving control points would produce more morph-like
> animations. Imagine morphing 2dimensional pictures instead of fading them
> from one into another. But this time it should be 3dimensional instead of
> 2dimensional :-)
hmm, yes you're right, it's a kind of fade-over of the two fourier-functions.
That was my goal, i didn't want to (and couldn't ;) )make a NURBS(or whatever)
-like morphing. Perhaps it doesn't look so good with these two shapes, but i
think with more 'real' and more similar objects it will look fine.
> regards,
> Apache
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
Greetings
Thies Heidecke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I expected some very funky and Terminator-II-like morphs! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why is the DivX 4 times longer, and slower, than the Mpeg? Did you do this
to save space? I like the animation but frankly I can't think of many uses
for this as long as the shapes have as many artefacts as they do now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas Lake" <tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3c7dffaf$1@news.povray.org...
> Why is the DivX 4 times longer, and slower, than the Mpeg? Did you do this
> to save space?
Both animations consist of 120 frames but the divx plays at 10fps
and the mpeg at 29.97fps because Videomach says that mpeg is
limited to that framerate.
> I like the animation
Thanks
> but frankly I can't think of many uses
> for this as long as the shapes have as many artefacts as they do now.
yeah, i know what you mean. The artifacts can be compensated with more
harmonics. In fact you can have as much details as you want, but it's
computationally expensive. Moreover these were extreme shapes and i
hope it will look better with more similar objects. I will post a new
animation when the analyzer-macro is done
Greetings
Thies Heidecke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thies Heidecke wrote:
> ...
> Both animations consist of 120 frames but the divx plays at 10fps
> and the mpeg at 29.97fps because Videomach says that mpeg is
> limited to that framerate.
? AFAIK that's not true (it does have limited framerates, but they go
lower than that). Check out my avi2mpg post in
povray.binaries.utilities; it's a command-line program, but usable
enough.
--
signature{
"Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
