On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:50:34PM +0200, gg@xxxxxxxxxxx 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.) > > > > --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. [...] The human eye has sharpness only in the middle of sight. Things that move forward and can't be focussed, obviously willo be unsharp. and translation and rotation therefore will also give unsharpness in the human eye/brain. So this is not only what a camera would record. Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
