On 08/18/10 11:07, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> 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.)
> --tml

Good point, the equal weighting probably is close to what a silver 
nitrate film camera would record, which is probably what this was 
intended to model.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to