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. /gg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
