home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!masscomp!calvin!mark
- From: mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics
- Subject: Re: motion blur...
- Message-ID: <1992Jul24.152331.2494@westford.ccur.com>
- Date: 24 Jul 92 15:23:31 GMT
- References: <1992Jul22.854.7999@dosgate>
- Sender: usenet@westford.ccur.com (UNIX news)
- Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Westford MA.
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Jul22.854.7999@dosgate> "james kewageshig" <james.kewageshig@canrem.com> writes:
- >mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
- >MT>A simplistic approach of merely doing additional sub-frame time
- >MT>renders and compositing.
- >Actually just thinking back to your AC article, you could kinda do it
- >with the 'transparency' setting in LightWave, like for rocket blasts.
-
- Its better to avoid transparency because it significantly increases render
- time. By using the compositing features of LightWave, you can use foreground
- fade with multiple passes to add "motion ghosts" of your motion blurred
- objects. It requires a little extra work in setting up some sub-frame time
- motion scenes with only the blurred object, but then the generated files
- can be composited into the original animation without a HORRENDOUS amount
- of compute overhead. If the camera is stationary or the background is
- fixed, you should be able to accomplish some fairly efficient and impressive
- blurring. I've left out a lot of the details but I only have so much time
- in a day.
- %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
- % ` ' Mark Thompson CONCURRENT COMPUTER %
- % --==* RADIANT *==-- mark@westford.ccur.com Principal Graphics %
- % ' Image ` ...!uunet!masscomp!mark Hardware Architect %
- % Productions (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829 & General Nuisance %
- % %
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-