 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-online de> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.11.2012 20:42, schrieb MichaelJF:
> 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.
While OpenEXR will give you an improvement, it would still be a
comparatively poor choice, as its absolute precision varies considerably
between dark and bright regions of an image, so you'd have different
quality on high plateaus than in low plains.
For your purposes, any classic file format with a 16-bit color depth
would be better suited, such as 16-bit png.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.11.2012 21:17, schrieb MichaelJF:
>> 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...
No, you're perfectly right there: averaging is the wrong operation for
this job; you do want an overlay operation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> While OpenEXR will give you an improvement, it would still be a
> comparatively poor choice, as its absolute precision varies considerably
> between dark and bright regions of an image, so you'd have different
> quality on high plateaus than in low plains.
>
> For your purposes, any classic file format with a 16-bit color depth
> would be better suited, such as 16-bit png.
Many thanks, it's just an experiment. And I see I have still much to learn,
again. But this is one reason I try to make pictures with POV, I learn. By
observation or even by being corrected for errors or misjudgements by this
wonderful community.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-11-2012 21:43, clipka wrote:
> Am 06.11.2012 21:17, schrieb MichaelJF:
>>> 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...
>
> No, you're perfectly right there: averaging is the wrong operation for
> this job; you do want an overlay operation.
>
Hmm yes. That is true. Not as straightforward as I thought. And if some
element of the scene partly obscures the moving object both techniques
won't work correctly. But otherwise an overlay would do.
We still need a megapov-type piece of code in the software.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
