> A motion blur is a retinal effect that has a time dependence.
Is "motion blur" actually something people perceive with their eyes
and brain, or something that only exists in physical artefacts?
(Either intentionally created by an artist to give the impression of
motion, or as an direct result of the method the still or motion
picture was created.) And we have been so used to it that we "know"
what it means, even if it doesn't correspond to what we actually see?
(But yeah, gg's arguments make sense.)
Gimp-developer mailing list