On 18.08.2010 12:50, 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 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: http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/blurtest.png 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 .->>> regards, yahvuu _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
