I'll second Nathan. Doing motion blur in 3D seems like your best bet. I know that motion blur in reflections in some renders can be tricky. A great example is a spinning chrome sphere, which shouldn't make the reflections become blurry. Sure the surface being shaded is moving but should not affect the reflections in any way. Possibly it was 3delight where you had to be cautious about this, however, doing it in 3D will save you a very intricate comp. Specially if there's a lot of different moving parts that are reflector. Eg. the internal gears of a watch.
/Elias 28 sep 2013 kl. 21:39 skrev "Nathan Rusch" <[email protected]>: > I would say definitely just render your 3D with motion blur. Given the nature > of your scene, the time it will take you to get a comp solution working > that’s even close to “good enough” will more than cancel out the time you > could save by avoiding it in 3D, and doing it right will always look better. > > -Nathan > > > From: Ryan O'Phelan > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 7:55 AM > To: Nuke user discussion > Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] motion blur in reflections > > The mirrored camera is the best choice because you can maintain a true pass > system in the reflection(you will have diffuse, gi, etc.) , which you > can't do otherwise. > > If you are feeling adventurous, you could try projecting a velocity pass on > your geo, from a previous render, and then rendering the reflection. Your > vertical vector will be inverted, but that's easy to fix in comp. > > Personally, I would stick to motion blur in camera. Lazy, I know. > > Ryan > > On Sep 28, 2013 2:50 AM, "matt estela" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm no v-ray expert either, but knowing that vray can be treated as a pure >> path-tracer like arnold, and getting motion blurred reflections from a >> pathtracer is down to spreading your reflection samples over time, I'm sure >> v-ray could do this happily, albeit slowly. Did a quick google, found some >> images that imply it can do it fine: >> >> http://www.cg-blog.com/index.php/2013/04/11/vray-motion-blur.htm >> >> (the first overly-streaky motion blurred image, you can see matching >> streaked reflections on the floor). >> >> You might have misremembered in terms of exporting motion vectors and >> applying blur in comp, in which case yes, there's no easy way to capture >> that in the render, and you'd need to do the cheats you've described. >> >> Another way would be to take your render camera, duplicate it, mirror it on >> the ground axis, render your reflections through that second 'reflection' >> camera. That way you could still export motion vectors, and keep it all in >> comp. Depends how clever you wanna be, vs just brute force render your way >> though it, which is becoming the norm these days. >> >> >> >> >> On 28 September 2013 16:18, adam jones <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hey hey >>> >>> I ask this question with the feeling I might have over looked some thing. >>> >>> I know this is not a vRay forum but I just want to give you the complete >>> story >>> >>> Ok am about to commence comp work on a TVC I have a mechanical object >>> moving across a mirror like ground surface, this object will have various >>> types / directions of MB going on some from its direction of movement but >>> also spinning wheels and cog with MB. >>> >>> Now from what I remember (might be different in newer version of the vRay >>> render) the MB is a vary post task being that it will not be shown in the >>> reflections on the ground. >>> >>> I have a couple of ideas of how to get this MB into the ground reflections >>> but they don't feel to elegant. >>> >>> one thought I had was…. >>> >>> there use to be a gizmo floating around that you could cast ground shadows >>> with a projection camera, I just can't remember if it required I piece of >>> geo or and alpha to do it, does an you remember this gizmo. >>> >>> also if any one has some ideas and or pointer that would be cool. >>> >>> keeping in mind that the ground surface will need to produce some what of a >>> clean reflection. >>> >>> thank you all >>> >>> -adam_______________________________________________ >>> Nuke-users mailing list >>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing list >> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
