clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 22.11.2013 12:59, schrieb Bill Pragnell:
> > The mirror ball is smiling in the first image :)
>
> He's ROTFL :)

RSROTCPL?

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.11.2013 15:58, schrieb Bill Pragnell:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 22.11.2013 12:59, schrieb Bill Pragnell:
>>> The mirror ball is smiling in the first image :)
>>
>> He's ROTFL :)
>
> RSROTCPL?

Almost - except that the P isn't really C but rather S.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> The mirror ball is smiling in the first image :)

And sickly non-smiling in the second, but luckily that is blurred ;)

Looking great!

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> can you guess the next major feature for UberPOV?
>
> First image rendered in 8m 33s.
> Second image rendered in 22m 28s.
>
> Still a bit of detail work for interoperation with radiosity and SSLT,
> but I guess I'll do a pre-release tomorrow to see you toy around with it.

Thank you !! This is great! And you really have a good sense of priority to spot
the most wanted features for pov and add them. would it do deformation motion
blur e.g. from a pov sphere animated non uniform scale, or if a mesh2 object's
points moved? will this uberpov branch merge some of its patches quicker into
pov trunk than megapov or will it keep diverging for long?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> can you guess the next major feature for UberPOV?
>
> First image rendered in 8m 33s.
> Second image rendered in 22m 28s.
>
> Still a bit of detail work for interoperation with radiosity and SSLT,
> but I guess I'll do a pre-release tomorrow to see you toy around with it.

Thanks for your effort on this, the motion blur and the other Uber features are
great additions, I just need to find some time to play around with them now.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.11.2013 19:15, schrieb Mr:

> Thank you !! This is great! And you really have a good sense of priority to spot
> the most wanted features for pov and add them.

I think it's more kind of "spot the features /I/ want most for pov..." 
;-) But I'm glad they happen to be wanted among the community, too.

> would it do deformation motion
> blur e.g. from a pov sphere animated non uniform scale, or if a mesh2 object's
> points moved?

What's currently in there is pretty basic in /how/ it does motion blur - 
which, thankfully, makes it ultimately flexible in /what/ it can do.

In essence, whatever you could imagine to do by rendering an animation 
and then averaging all images, you can do with this feature in just a 
single render pass.

The idea behind it is simple: Think of the render as a photograph with a 
certain non-zero exposure time. Now if you have any moving object in the 
scene, you create N copies of it with slightly different positions, 
orientations, shapes, textures or whatever you can imagine, and assign 
each copy an individual time interval within the exposure time.

UberPOV will then fire rays into the scene that are not only 
characterized by their trajectory in space, but also by a point in time; 
objects that do not match this particular time are ignored for this 
particular ray and all secondary rays (shadow rays, reflection rays etc) 
it spawns.


In the future, this approach will be complemented by features catering 
to more specific use cases, such as an object moving along a linear 
trajectory or rotating about a fixed axis. Those will then be both 
easier to set up (probably just specifying a translation or rotation) 
and also less memory-consuming (only one instance of the object will be 
needed).


> will this uberpov branch merge some of its patches quicker into
> pov trunk than megapov or will it keep diverging for long?

That's difficult to tell.

On one hand, from what I see UberPOV is in a similar situation as 
MegaPOV was: Aside from being a collection of patches, it was also 
intended to be a testbed for new features, and AFAIU it was also 
maintained by people closely affiliated with the POV-Ray dev team, so 
there's no reason there to assume that UberPOV should fare any better: 
At the end of the day it all boils down to whether the POV-Ray dev team 
as a whole decides to integrate a given feature into POV-Ray proper.

One thing that is a big obstacle for UberPOV's main features is that 
they are all based on stochastic stuff, i.e. random in nature, which 
does not go well with animations because it can create flickering (at 
least that's the lore - I'm already pondering a way around that); 
traditionally, POV-Ray has always been reluctant to incorporate such 
features.

On the other hand there have been changes in the dev team recently, 
which might affect the future course of POV-Ray; if so, I would expect a 
less dogmatic and more pragmatic approach to new features. But only time 
will tell.

Post a reply to this message

Just a rapid test of the blink patch, with James Holsenback's beautiful 
metallic texture.

Only ten instances of the ovus used here so the result is crude but it 
shows me the way to go :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stochastic_blink.png' (458 KB)

Preview of image 'stochastic_blink.png'

Am 29.11.2013 10:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Just a rapid test of the blink patch, with James Holsenback's beautiful
> metallic texture.

BTW, I'm still looking for a smarter name for that keyword. Anyone have 
any suggestions?

Post a reply to this message

Le 29/11/2013 12:19, clipka a écrit :
> Am 29.11.2013 10:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Just a rapid test of the blink patch, with James Holsenback's beautiful
>> metallic texture.
> 
> BTW, I'm still looking for a smarter name for that keyword. Anyone have
> any suggestions?
> 

only a few suggestion & hints via questions:
 1. what is the syntax ? Is it something like

...
  foobar { object MyObject repetition 20 movement ...

? Or something totally different (like photon adding blocks everywhere ) ?

 2. what is the intended effect ?
 3. how is it achieved ? and would that be the only forever way to
achieve it ?

 4. remember that short but significant name are best.
 5. Is there something similar already in another domain.

Your candidat is "blink", but we are rendering static image (no animated
gif output!), and blink reminds me of a tragic extension of Internet
Explorer.

The effect on first post of thread make me think of the after-effect
that was used in the "Flash" serie (post 90's)
so I could suggest:

 * flash_effect (not my favortie at all)
 * drag / pull / dragging / moving
 * shutter_drag
 * blurry / blur
 * moving_supersampled
 * motion_trails
 * motion_blurred
 * trails
 * motion
 * shutter_control
 * shutter
 * slow_shutter
 * slow
 * extended_exposure

And of course, use a synonym website to find correlated name/verb until
you have the perfect match.

The term in photography is shutter drag, or dragging the shutter, but
it's just a bit too long for my taste. (and there is the option to add a
flash point (or many) for a more solid capture of the subject along its
course).

What do you think of "blurry" ?

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2013 13:09, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> What do you think of "blurry" ?
>

motion blur is the closed definition I believe. so maybe: "moblur"?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2013 04:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Only ten instances of the ovus used here so the result is crude but it
> shows me the way to go :-)

was thinking of trying out "blink" on a candle flame but haven't gotten 
to it yet ... mind posting a little code snip-it of the what you did on 
the ovus object

as far as the "blink" keyword itself ... here's an idea. What is the 
word blink in other languages, maybe that might have a better "ring" to it

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 13:09, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

>> BTW, I'm still looking for a smarter name for that keyword. Anyone have
>> any suggestions?
>>
>
> only a few suggestion & hints via questions:
>   1. what is the syntax ? Is it something like
>
> ....
>    foobar { object MyObject repetition 20 movement ...
>
> ? Or something totally different (like photon adding blocks everywhere ) ?

The syntax of the feature per se is as simple as

     OBJECT {
       ...
       blink [FLOAT,] FLOAT
     }

giving a time interval, in fractions of exposure time, during which the 
object is supposed to be visible in the scene (defaulting to "blink 0.0, 
1.0", i.e. the entire exposure time).

To use it for motion blur, you would use it as in the following example:

     #local DeltaT = 0.1;
     #for( T, 0.0, 1.0, DeltaT )
       sphere {
         <T,0,0>, 1
         blink T, T+DeltaT
       }
     #end


>   2. what is the intended effect ?

The intended effect of the feature per se is to make a given object 
appear to be present in the scene only during a part of the exposure time.

Thus, besides motion blur, it could also be used to simulate double 
exposure. E.g. you might add a "gost" to the image, an object that is 
transparent with respect to the remainder of the scene but opaque when 
it comes to occluding itself.


>   3. how is it achieved ? and would that be the only forever way to
> achieve it ?

Each ray shot is tagged with a point in time (currently at random), and 
each ray-object intersection test begins with a test whether that point 
in time is within the given object's "blink" time interval; if it isn't, 
the ray is considered to miss regardless of geometry.


> The effect on first post of thread make me think of the after-effect
> that was used in the "Flash" serie (post 90's)
> so I could suggest:
>
>   * flash_effect (not my favortie at all)

Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.

>   * drag / pull / dragging / moving

Nope, as the basic effect is unrelated to movement.

>   * shutter_drag

Have to investigate what that would be supposed to mean.

>   * blurry / blur

Nope, as the basic effect is unrelated to blur.

>   * moving_supersampled

Again nope (unrelated to movement), but a variation might fit.

>   * motion_trails
>   * motion_blurred
>   * trails
>   * motion

Nope (unrelated to either movement or blur).

>   * shutter_control
>   * shutter
>   * slow_shutter

Might be possible to do something with this.

>   * slow

Nope, as we aren't slowing anything there.

>   * extended_exposure

Might also be a direction to go in.


> And of course, use a synonym website to find correlated name/verb until
> you have the perfect match.
>
> The term in photography is shutter drag, or dragging the shutter, but
> it's just a bit too long for my taste.

Well, that would be the term for the motion blur effect I guess, but 
this feature is rather unrelated to motion blur, except that you can use 
it to achieve this effect. For standard cases (such as steady motion 
along a straight path or steady rotation) I'll add some dedicated syntax 
that will require only one instance of the object.

> (and there is the option to add a
> flash point (or many) for a more solid capture of the subject along its
> course).

That sounds more like what the effect actually does. (Still doesn't 
exactly cut it; I guess that would be more fitting in the contect of an 
actual motion blur feature, to specify that a particular point in time 
should be exaggerated.)


Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2013 14:00, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 04:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Only ten instances of the ovus used here so the result is crude but it
>> shows me the way to go :-)
>
> was thinking of trying out "blink" on a candle flame but haven't gotten
> to it yet ... mind posting a little code snip-it of the what you did on
> the ovus object

Here it is:
#local Ovus =
ovus {
   1.00, 0.65
   translate 0.5*y
   scale 0.5
   MetalMat (<0.65, 0.15, 0.25>)
}

union {
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0, -10> blink 0, 0.1}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0, -8> blink 0, 0.2}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0, -6> blink 0, 0.4}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0, -4> blink 0, 0.6}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0, -2> blink 0, 0.8}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  0> blink 0, 1.0}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  2> blink 0, 0.8}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  4> blink 0, 0.6}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  6> blink 0, 0.4}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  8> blink 0, 0.2}
   object {Ovus rotate <0, 0,  10> blink 0, 0.1}
   translate <-1.00, 0.0, -1>
}

Only thing I changed with respect to the image: this code makes the ovus 
wobble on its base; in the image the ovus is translated left and right.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.

How about "expose"?

Regards
Aydan

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 16:10, schrieb clipka:

> Thus, besides motion blur, it could also be used to simulate double
> exposure. E.g. you might add a "gost" to the image, an object that is
> transparent with respect to the remainder of the scene but opaque when
> it comes to occluding itself.

BTW, I actually happened to be busy implementing a feature specifically 
designed for this particular effect (with an elaborate syntax providing 
for multiple "ghost groups" that would again be transparent with respect 
to each other) and struggling with some implementation details, when it 
hit me that if I instead just implemented a straightforward multiple 
exposure simulation I could achieve exactly the same effect (albeit with 
a less luxurious syntax) with much less implementation effort, /and/ get 
a catch-all fallback solution for motion blur for free.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 16:23, schrieb Aydan:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.
>
> How about "expose"?

Hm. I think that sounds quite ok and fitting.

Or maybe "exposure_time".

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2013 16:31, clipka wrote:
> BTW, I actually happened to be busy implementing a feature specifically
> designed for this particular effect (with an elaborate syntax providing
> for multiple "ghost groups" that would again be transparent with respect
> to each other) and struggling with some implementation details, when it
> hit me that if I instead just implemented a straightforward multiple
> exposure simulation I could achieve exactly the same effect (albeit with
> a less luxurious syntax) with much less implementation effort, /and/ get
> a catch-all fallback solution for motion blur for free.
>

[salive trickling from tusks...] :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.

How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?

:-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 16:41, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 29-11-2013 16:31, clipka wrote:
>> BTW, I actually happened to be busy implementing a feature specifically
>> designed for this particular effect (with an elaborate syntax providing
>> for multiple "ghost groups" that would again be transparent with respect
>> to each other) and struggling with some implementation details, when it
>> hit me that if I instead just implemented a straightforward multiple
>> exposure simulation I could achieve exactly the same effect (albeit with
>> a less luxurious syntax) with much less implementation effort, /and/ get
>> a catch-all fallback solution for motion blur for free.
>>
>
> [salive trickling from tusks...] :-)

Hmm... what's that drooling about? You already tested the result of this 
thought process, didn't you.


As for placing a single ghost in a scene, it's as simple as adding 
"blink FLOAT" to the respective CSG.

For two independent ghosts you'll want to specify two different time 
intervals that partially overlap, such as:

   #declare GHOST1 = 0.3;
   #declare GHOST2 = 0.4;

   object { MyGhost1
     blink 0.0, GHOST1
   }
   object { MyGhost2
     blink GHOST1 - GHOST1*GHOST2, GHOST1+GHOST2 - GHOST1*GHOST2
   }

For three or more fully independent ghosts it starts to get more 
complicated, and you'll have to duplicate at least one of the objects.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen:
> On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.
>
> How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?

I'd prefer /not/ to place my username in a context linguistically 
reminiscent of the German colloquial term for toddler droppings... >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/13 15:10, clipka wrote:
> 
> 
> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.
> 

ghost sounds good to me.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/13 16:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 29.11.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.
>>
>> How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?
> 
> I'd prefer /not/ to place my username in a context linguistically
> reminiscent of the German colloquial term for toddler droppings... >_<
> 

... and, indeed, Slovak poo.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2013 4:34 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 29.11.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.
>>
>> How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?
>
> I'd prefer /not/ to place my username in a context linguistically
> reminiscent of the German colloquial term for toddler droppings... >_<
>

Oops! Sorry.
It never crossed my mind. Of course you wouldn't.

So my suggestion is a miss, then?

cliplipipp?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2013 4:55 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 29/11/13 15:10, clipka wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.
>>
>
> ghost sounds good to me.
>

+001


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 29.11.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen:
> > On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> >> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.
> >
> > How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?
>
> I'd prefer /not/ to place my username in a context linguistically
> reminiscent of the German colloquial term for toddler droppings... >_<

English, too.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 18:22, schrieb Stephen:

> So my suggestion is a miss, then?

I would think so, yes.

> cliplipipp?

Nopopopope.

Post a reply to this message

Le 29/11/2013 16:10, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 29.11.2013 13:09, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> 

>>   2. what is the intended effect ?
> 
> The intended effect of the feature per se is to make a given object
> appear to be present in the scene only during a part of the exposure time.
> 
> Thus, besides motion blur, it could also be used to simulate double
> exposure. E.g. you might add a "gost" to the image, an object that is
> transparent with respect to the remainder of the scene but opaque when
> it comes to occluding itself.

> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.
> 

Yes! ghost is perfect. See how you explained it. "ghost" is the natural
term that you came with, and it explains very well the effect.

I was assuming a moving blur due to the multiple instance showed, not
realising it had to be explicitly repeated.

Go For ghost!

(Not to be confused with ghoti, which would be pronounced as fish.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> For three or more fully independent ghosts it starts to get more
> complicated, and you'll have to duplicate at least one of the objects.

Could it be an option to allow multiple instances of the "blink" keyword?

blink 0.0 0.1
blink 0.5 0.6
...

Or maybe use an arbitrary number of two-valued vectors instead of just two 
numbers?

blink <0.0, 0.1>, <0.5, 0.6>, ...

Or something like a "time map"?

blink_map {
 [0.1 blink]
 [0.5 blink]
 [0.6 blink]
 ...
}

(this is assuming the object starts at time 0.0 as visible, then at 0.1 
becomes invisible, at 0.5 visible again, at 0.6 invisible again...)


As a name for the feature, it reminds me of the way different parts of a 
presentation are shown/hidden in the "beamer" package for LaTeX (used to 
create power-point-like PDF presentations). So I suggest:

only
time_only
time
time_domain
time_span
switch  (would it conflict with #switch ?)
exists

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2013 5:59 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 29.11.2013 18:22, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> So my suggestion is a miss, then?
>
> I would think so, yes.
>
>> cliplipipp?
>
> Nopopopope.
>

You sound like an Ulsterman.
And if you don't get that. Then it is more credit to you. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2013 20:23, schrieb Jellby:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> For three or more fully independent ghosts it starts to get more
>> complicated, and you'll have to duplicate at least one of the objects.
>
> Could it be an option to allow multiple instances of the "blink" keyword?
>
> blink 0.0 0.1
> blink 0.5 0.6
> ....

I already thought about that, but I guess for now the feature is useful 
enough as it is, so it's very low on my to do list.

Post a reply to this message

Le 13-11-29 10:10, clipka a écrit :
> Am 29.11.2013 13:09, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>
>>> BTW, I'm still looking for a smarter name for that keyword. Anyone have
>>> any suggestions?
>>>
>>
>> only a few suggestion & hints via questions:
>>   1. what is the syntax ? Is it something like
>>
>> ....
>>    foobar { object MyObject repetition 20 movement ...
>>
>> ? Or something totally different (like photon adding blocks everywhere
>> ) ?
>
> The syntax of the feature per se is as simple as
>
>      OBJECT {
>        ...
>        blink [FLOAT,] FLOAT
>      }
>
> giving a time interval, in fractions of exposure time, during which the
> object is supposed to be visible in the scene (defaulting to "blink 0.0,
> 1.0", i.e. the entire exposure time).
>
> To use it for motion blur, you would use it as in the following example:
>
>      #local DeltaT = 0.1;
>      #for( T, 0.0, 1.0, DeltaT )
>        sphere {
>          <T,0,0>, 1
>          blink T, T+DeltaT
>        }
>      #end
>
>
>>   2. what is the intended effect ?
>
> The intended effect of the feature per se is to make a given object
> appear to be present in the scene only during a part of the exposure time.
>
> Thus, besides motion blur, it could also be used to simulate double
> exposure. E.g. you might add a "gost" to the image, an object that is
> transparent with respect to the remainder of the scene but opaque when
> it comes to occluding itself.
>
>

My propositions:
ephemeral
transitory


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 13-11-29 11:34, clipka a écrit :
> Am 29.11.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 29/11/2013 3:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Don't want to name it after a particular instance of use.
>>
>> How about clipkakaka [FLOAT,] FLOAT ?
>
> I'd prefer /not/ to place my username in a context linguistically
> reminiscent of the German colloquial term for toddler droppings... >_<
>
Same thing in French, just replace the "k" with "c"...

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2013 17:29, clipka wrote:
>
> Hmm... what's that drooling about? You already tested the result of this
> thought process, didn't you.

Just the ideas coming about possibilities... ;-)

Btw, as suggested below, "ghost" seems an excellent name for the patch.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/13 18:05, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 29/11/2013 16:10, clipka nous fit lire :
>> Am 29.11.2013 13:09, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>
> 
>>>   2. what is the intended effect ?
>>
>> The intended effect of the feature per se is to make a given object
>> appear to be present in the scene only during a part of the exposure time.
>>
>> Thus, besides motion blur, it could also be used to simulate double
>> exposure. E.g. you might add a "gost" to the image, an object that is
>> transparent with respect to the remainder of the scene but opaque when
>> it comes to occluding itself.
> 
>> Maybe I'll go for "ghost" in the end.
>>
> 
> Yes! ghost is perfect. See how you explained it. "ghost" is the natural
> term that you came with, and it explains very well the effect.
> 
> I was assuming a moving blur due to the multiple instance showed, not
> realising it had to be explicitly repeated.
> 
> Go For ghost!
> 
> (Not to be confused with ghoti, which would be pronounced as fish.)
> 

See: http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> (Not to be confused with ghoti, which would be pronounced as fish.)

You know English well!

Post a reply to this message

On 30-11-2013 11:41, Doctor John wrote:
> See: http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html

Precious! I love those things linguistic.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I know it is OT, but in this context I cannot refrain to give this, 
which appeared today: 
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131129-are-imperial-measures-outdated

Enjoy!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2013 12:35 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I know it is OT, but in this context I cannot refrain to give this,
> which appeared today:
> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131129-are-imperial-measures-outdated
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Thomas

What a shame:

We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of 
our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 30-11-2013 13:50, Stephen wrote:
> What a shame:
>
> We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of
> our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.
>

Really!? Strange. It does not seem to be on the BBC /International/ 
service though.

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/13 13:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 30-11-2013 13:50, Stephen wrote:
>> What a shame:
>>
>> We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of
>> our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.
>>
> 
> Really!? Strange. It does not seem to be on the BBC /International/
> service though.
> 
> Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
> 
> Thomas

Brilliant :-) and, of course, totally logical

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 30-11-2013 14:55, Doctor John wrote:
> On 30/11/13 13:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Brilliant :-) and, of course, totally logical
>
Absolutely. Makes you wonder why Europe does not adopt the imperial 
measures. Must be the name. Make it: European measures and it will be 
adopted. ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2013 16:10, clipka wrote:
> To use it for motion blur, you would use it as in the following example:
>
>      #local DeltaT = 0.1;
>      #for( T, 0.0, 1.0, DeltaT )
>        sphere {
>          <T,0,0>, 1
>          blink T, T+DeltaT
>        }
>      #end
>

To be correct, this should be this:

     #local DeltaT = 0.1;
     #for( T, 0.0, 0.9, DeltaT )
       sphere {
         <T,0.5,-1>, 0.5
         blink 0, T+DeltaT
       }
     #end

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/13 15:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Absolutely. Makes you wonder why Europe does not adopt the imperial
> measures. Must be the name. Make it: European measures and it will be
> adopted. ;-)
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 

how about keizermaatregelen

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2013 4:27 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 30/11/13 15:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Absolutely. Makes you wonder why Europe does not adopt the imperial
>> measures. Must be the name. Make it: European measures and it will be
>> adopted. ;-)
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
> how about keizermaatregelen
>

It is not as if the rest of Europe has not had its fair share of empires.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/13 16:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/11/2013 4:27 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 30/11/13 15:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Absolutely. Makes you wonder why Europe does not adopt the imperial
>>> measures. Must be the name. Make it: European measures and it will be
>>> adopted. ;-)
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>
>> how about keizermaatregelen
>>
> 
> It is not as if the rest of Europe has not had its fair share of empires.
> 

Indeed, jimmy, indeed.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2013 4:45 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Indeed, jimmy, indeed.

Maybe it is not appropriate to be making more Weegie jokes at this time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25165894
In case you have not noticed.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/13 17:21, Stephen wrote:
> Maybe it is not appropriate to be making more Weegie jokes at this time.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25165894
> In case you have not noticed.
> 

Heard about the crash but unaware of the death toll. I mourn but try to
keep life going on.

Going back to p.o-t

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 29.11.2013 10:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > Just a rapid test of the blink patch, with James Holsenback's beautiful
> > metallic texture.
>
> BTW, I'm still looking for a smarter name for that keyword. Anyone have
> any suggestions?

Before naming it exploring various syntaxes feels important, if it will ever get
related to the clock or clock_delta feature? or be a time map etc.

Everyone accepted ghost so it's a very good testing choice. but a hint of what
the number values will be relative to in the word itself would be good.
So if you keep the ghost keyword, should'nt the values be inverted to their
present sintax since for now the values closer to zero are the full ghost effect
end the 1 is not.

Based on the current syntax, here are some more propositions (maybe some already
done):


strobe

shutter_strobe

presence

present_for

shutter_presence

shutter_stop

shutter_fade

ghost_span

shutter_ghost

time_share

shutter_time

shutter_span

speed_ghost

(un)ghosting

(un)ghost_factor

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> can you guess the next major feature for UberPOV?
>
> First image rendered in 8m 33s.
> Second image rendered in 22m 28s.
>
> Still a bit of detail work for interoperation with radiosity and SSLT,
> but I guess I'll do a pre-release tomorrow to see you toy around with it.

I forgot to ask how will this behave with a camera:
will the ghost/blink/strobe keyword be enough to create camera space motion blur
if no other object but the camera moves in the scene?

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.12.2013 14:18, schrieb Mr:

> I forgot to ask how will this behave with a camera:
> will the ghost/blink/strobe keyword be enough to create camera space motion blur
> if no other object but the camera moves in the scene?

No, not at the moment.

Post a reply to this message