Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!spool2.mu.edu!think.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk
From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 3D Objects
Message-ID: <683@cbmger.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 91 11:25:19 GMT
References: <6562@crash.cts.com> <4457@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1990Dec30.160607.21571@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany
Lines: 28

In article <1990Dec30.160607.21571@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>
>Strangely enough, both may be true. There is a technology that uses the
>computer to "fly" the camera around the model or other object being
>filmed.

Yes, this is called "Motion Control". And interestingly, in Germany
there is a company that does this with - guess what - an Amiga!
They have a 3D editor similar to Sculpt where you can put in the
path the camera shall take and then this is processed. It was
already used for some science fiction films (I think one was
"Moonbase soandso" or similar).

> For each frame, the computer would move the camera
>back, start moving toward the object (neon light letters were popular),
>open the shutter a bit before the midpoint, close it a bit after the
>midpoint (supplying the 'streaks"), stop the camera, back it up, step
>the midpoint toward the object, and do the next frame.

Sorry for my bad English, I don't realize whether you already said it:
The point is, the camera MUST NOT stop its own motion during the
exposure of a single frame. Else you wouldn't get smooth movement.
It's the same effect the new animation programs try to achieve
through "motion blur".

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk