4 ms·
Thanks. :) It's likely because I don't fake the motion blur effect as it is most commonly done (nothing wrong with that, I'm just describing it). Instead, I ca
by shurcooL 14y ago
Thanks. :)
It's likely because I don't fake the motion blur effect as it is most commonly done (nothing wrong with that, I'm just describing it). Instead, I calculate what your eyes would realistically see. I render the triangle with a non-zero exposure time (the exposure time is equal to the duration of 1 frame).
There are definitely some shortcuts and approximations taken (I don't compensate for how CRT/LCD displays display images, no colour correction, etc.), but the "big picture" is 100% based on real physics.
The motion blur is calculated with the assumption you keep your eyes still. If you track the moving square, then by definition there should be zero motion blur (if your display were perfect). However, it still looks okay with motion blur even if you track the square.
- Arelius 14y ago> but the "big picture" is 100% based on real physics. Having implemented motion blur numerous times, this is actually super interesting to me. However I was reading through your source-code and was having a hard time following along. Any chance you could explain what the physical models you are basing your algorithm on and how that ended up translating to code? Thanks.
- shurcooL 14y agoFirst I'll link you to these two replies [1][2]. I can go in more detail if you'd like. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211294 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211294 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211332 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211332
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- capisce 14y agoYou can fake gamma correct blending quite cheaply in the fragment shader. Just square the RGB values before blending them, then sqrt the result before storing it. The visual impact is significant for fast moving items, there's a higher continuity of motion.