 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] free fr> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
