 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.11.2012 20:46, schrieb MichaelJF:
> Yes, your proposal is much more detailed than mine. In fact I only mentioned the
> general idea that simply averaging pictures of a flight will not yield a motion
> blurred picture and proper weights are needed.
As a matter of fact, for /realistic/ motion blur simple averaging of the
images /is/ the proper method. Whike the "opaque object with transparent
trail" look is a common staple - probably invented to give the
impression of motion while at the same time preserving object detail -
it is outright wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-11-2012 20:02, MichaelJF wrote:
>
>> Ah! A little trick I might need. The animation ng is not regularly open
>> on my system, but I should give it a look once in a while :-)
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Ah! That is why I get no comment from you to my first (very technically) entry
> there. And I value your comments very much ;-)
<blush> I shall have to experiment with this then... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 04.11.2012 20:46, schrieb MichaelJF:
>
> > Yes, your proposal is much more detailed than mine. In fact I only mentioned the
> > general idea that simply averaging pictures of a flight will not yield a motion
> > blurred picture and proper weights are needed.
>
> As a matter of fact, for /realistic/ motion blur simple averaging of the
> images /is/ the proper method. Whike the "opaque object with transparent
> trail" look is a common staple - probably invented to give the
> impression of motion while at the same time preserving object detail -
> it is outright wrong.
Thanks, clipka... I knew I wasn't going crazy :) Maybe MJF is confusing motion
blur with tracers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Am 04.11.2012 20:46, schrieb MichaelJF:
>
>> Yes, your proposal is much more detailed than mine. In fact I only
>> mentioned the
>> general idea that simply averaging pictures of a flight will not yield
>> a motion
>> blurred picture and proper weights are needed.
>
> As a matter of fact, for /realistic/ motion blur simple averaging of th
e
> images /is/ the proper method. Whike the "opaque object with transparen
t
> trail" look is a common staple - probably invented to give the
> impression of motion while at the same time preserving object detail -
> it is outright wrong.
>
The "opaque object with transparent trail" is also what you get
with a flash light synced on the rear curtain and a long(ish)
exposure time (if you don't sync on the rear curtain, the "trail"
will be in front of the object, or sometimes on both sides).
For example:
http://www.apnphotographyschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/358x500xni
kon-speedlight-rear-curtain-sync.jpg.pagespeed.ic.qeHOKzR258.jpg
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> But you are still limited to 256 entries.
Actually, you're not. While it's true that any given _map is limited to 256
entries, you can nest maps to exceed that limitation. You're pretty much
averaging averaged pigments at that point :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Thanks, clipka... I knew I wasn't going crazy :) Maybe MJF is confusing motion
> blur with tracers?
Sorry, I don't know what I mixed up, may be impressions from ads, I took for
photographies or something like Jerome presented. Tracers certainly not, because
I first had to look up the wikipedia what this could be... But is superman very
far away from them?
Yes, as ever clipka is right, as is clear, if one thinks a bit more before
posting...
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> <blush> I shall have to experiment with this then... ;-)
>
> Thomas
No need to blush;-) I only thought that my cheap trick could interest you
regarding your former profession.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-11-2012 20:13, MichaelJF wrote:
> No need to blush;-) I only thought that my cheap trick could interest you
> regarding your former profession.
Oh, absolutely. In fact I have been thinking about the contour line
possibilities for a long time without getting very far. So, I see great
possibilities in your technique.
But with regard of the motion blur proper, I have been thinking about
how to use the averaging method (to replace the Megapov application)
without loosing to much (render) time. One thing your comment above made
me think of was (1) to isolate the moving object from the scene proper,
(2) animate it to get motion blur on a transparent background and
average the frames, and finally (3) average the blurred object image
with the scene image.
While more work than with Megapov, I suppose that it might work, and it
probably is the technique used originally by Megapov, but then embedded
into the code.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 5-11-2012 20:13, MichaelJF wrote:
> > No need to blush;-) I only thought that my cheap trick could interest you
> > regarding your former profession.
>
> Oh, absolutely. In fact I have been thinking about the contour line
> possibilities for a long time without getting very far. So, I see great
> possibilities in your technique.
Thanks, I just investigate if exr-pictures can achieve an improvement after
having reached a certain approximation of the landscape with png.
> But with regard of the motion blur proper, I have been thinking about
> how to use the averaging method (to replace the Megapov application)
> without loosing to much (render) time. One thing your comment above made
> me think of was (1) to isolate the moving object from the scene proper,
> (2) animate it to get motion blur on a transparent background and
> average the frames, and finally (3) average the blurred object image
> with the scene image.
>
> While more work than with Megapov, I suppose that it might work, and it
> probably is the technique used originally by Megapov, but then embedded
> into the code.
>
> Thomas
Sounds great, I think, this is the way to go.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > (3) average the blurred object image
> > with the scene image.
Second thought: average the images with the transparent background and layer the
result over the original scene only. Otherwise the original scene (background)
has a chance to come into the object in motion. Ok, may be only to a small,
hardly visible amount...
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
