On 18.08.2010 12:50, g...@catking.net wrote:
> 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.)
> Good point, the equal weighting probably is close to what a silver
> nitrate film camera would record
I think so, too. Consider the star trails in a long-time exposure of a
night sky: there is no decay visible. However, and whatever the motivation,
it's an interesting idea, so here's a quick comparison for a linear motion blur:
Regretably, the mathmap convolve function introduces some artifacts,
but i think it can be seen that 'decaying' (or 'soft'?) motion blur
is an option of artistical relevance.
Tongue in cheek, i shurely wouldn't oppose if someone wanted to get code
providing this functionality included into GIMP .->>>
Gimp-developer mailing list