On 08/18/10 19:09, yahvuu wrote:
> 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 .->>>
The blurtest.png is interesting. The example with the decaying kernel is
the only one that suggests movement to me , it definitely has direction.
All the others look, well, blurred.
Despite the artifacts of the implementation, this suggests some sort of
progressive blur may be interesting and may suggest movement better than
current photographic blur.
Gimp-developer mailing list