 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Before I try this, is it possible to nest motion blur? I desire nesting
blurs, so that I can set a propellor into motion, snap a wing off my plane,
and then blur the resulting roll. Somehow, I don't think separate blurs
without the nesting operation, will bring about the desired result. Add to
that separate object blurs and chaos in motion and I will soon have one very
big headache to go along with the high render time.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude <vos### [at] yahoo com> wrote...
> Before I try this, is it possible to nest motion blur? I desire nesting
> blurs, so that I can set a propellor into motion, snap a wing off my
plane,
> and then blur the resulting roll. Somehow, I don't think separate blurs
> without the nesting operation, will bring about the desired result. Add to
> that separate object blurs and chaos in motion and I will soon have one
very
> big headache to go along with the high render time.
No, you cannot nest motion_blur objects. You can, however, put all of you
action into one single motion blur object without much difficulty.
motion_blur{
union{
object{myObj1 rotate 0.5*x*clock} // myObj1 rotates
object{myObj2 translate 0.5*y*clock } // myObj2 moves
scale .1*clock // the whole union scales
}
}
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you, Nathan. :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: No, you cannot nest motion_blur objects.
Should this option be supported?
It can be sometimes useful. For example suppose that you #declare an
object which is motion blurred or which has motion blurred parts. Then you
use this identifier as part of a bigger object, which is then motion blurred
itself.
Of course the render times will explode, but at least it would be
consistent with everything else.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote...
> Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
> : No, you cannot nest motion_blur objects.
>
> Should this option be supported?
Probably.
> Of course the render times will explode, but at least it would be
> consistent with everything else.
Render times wouldn't have to explode. Instead, POV would just split apart
the child motion_blur object and put it into the various pieces of the
parent motion_blur, applying transformations and other modifications as
necessary.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: Render times wouldn't have to explode. Instead, POV would just split apart
: the child motion_blur object and put it into the various pieces of the
: parent motion_blur, applying transformations and other modifications as
: necessary.
So you mean that if the child motion blur created 10 objects and it's
unioned with a parent object which is motion-blurred with 10 objects, it
will not create 10*10 = 100 child objects but instead it will create 10
child objects with the combined transformation of the child object and
the parent object (matrix multiplication?).
Yes, that would be a lot better and clever solution.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm all for it! :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
