Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!vsi1!daver!versatc.versatec.COM!ritter From: ritter@versatc.versatec.COM (Jack Ritter) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Motion Blur Keywords: Temporal aliasing, frames, physiology, cameras. Message-ID: <20921@versatc.versatec.COM> Date: 3 Aug 90 22:55:09 GMT Organization: Versatec, Santa Clara, Ca. 95051 Lines: 49 About 5 years ago, I saw a Siggraph presentation on computer animation. I forgot who the deliverer was, but he showed a computer film of a complex, stick & ball type molecule, rotating. First he showed a version WITHOUT motion blur; all frames were sharp. Then he showed a version WITH motion blur. The upshot was: "Look how much 'smoother' the motion blurred version is, as opposed to the 'stroboscopic' effect of the non blurred version." Well, I LIKED the stroboscopic one BETTER than the motion blurred one. It was simply crisper and more enjoyable than the mushiness of the blurred version. Some of the literature implies that it's good for computers to immitate artifacts left over from cameras, like motion blue (and depth-of-field.) Of course, m.b. helps alleviate "popping fragments", but this was not a factor in the molecule rendering. Are there sound physiological principles that support the need for motion blur? My eyes didnt seem to need it, at least not at the frame/sec rate he showed. Maybe there's another factor: We're so used to seeing motion blur all our lives, from film & tv cameras, that when you take it away, we MISS it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- (Personally, I think the eye-brain system behaves digitally AND analogically, AND in accordance with all responsible, future theories that ever come along.) -- Versatec, Inc. Jack Ritter, M.S. 1-7 2710 Walsh Ave. P.O. Box 58091 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8091 (408)982-4332, or (408)988-2800 X 5743 UUNET: {ames,apple,sun,pyramid}!versatc!ritter --( / __ - .. (( / / / -- ) . \ \ // . ( / ** ) // _*_ // * .. ) (( . \ / . * ) //