 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
