Talk:Motion blur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animation (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Ever an ocular phenomenon?[edit]

I'm suddenly curious about something the editors of this page might be able to answer... Are there any circumstances in which motion blur can be "seen" in real life, under natural light? Or is it always an effect of camera capture? (That is, even though nothing physically "blurs," perhaps the nature of human vision could give a blurring effect?) \sim Lenoxus " * " 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

/\ Well, no[edit]

I think people, while viewing objects at any speed, wouldnt experience motion blur effects. Motion blur basically occurs because there is a retention time on the sensors, so they are sensible to image changes: if something changes position, the sensor will have all those different lights in one image. With out eyes, however, I think thats not the case. Our retinas doesnt really have a big retention time, I guess - it's more time-continuous capturing - more like a cinema camera. We take (consciousness) and remember a few snapshots only. Therefore, we are suceptible to only other efects, like temporal aliasing, when you see fast-moving car wheels look strange.

Im not an expert neighter in vision neighter in nothing, though.

-(IP), Gustav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.144.200 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you wave your hand rapidly back and forth, it does seem to be blurring. I don't know if this would technically be referred to as a different phenomenon than motion blurring, but we certainly do expect to see a blurring and stretching effect as things move too quickly for our eyes to track. --75.9.208.80 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and this would imply that humans new of motion blur effects before the invention of cameras. Is there any historical evidence to back this up? What's the oldest mention of motion blur? Mangledorf (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The images.[edit]

Fix them. 137.164.198.146 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Artificial motion blur (or lack of it)[edit]

"Some video game players claim that artificial motion blur causes headaches." From ref 5: "I didn't really notice this until playing the Crysis 2 demo. When running there is motion blur." I do not doubt the personal experience (or that it applies to other players or in other games). I'm not going to split hairs about the "artificial" in "artificial motion blur", but all motion blur is artificial. I just wander why it causes headaches AND what is the correct length (in time) of motion blur. See for contrast:

"In televised sports, where conventional cameras expose pictures 25 or 30 times per second, motion blur can be inconvenient because it obscures the exact position of a projectile or athlete in slow motion. For this reason special cameras are often used which eliminate motion blurring by taking rapid exposures on the order of 1/1000 of a second [..] it can look strange at normal speed because the eye expects to see motion blurring"

So, too little can also be bad, I would think (my own WP:OR) that regular camera exposure time is 1/25 (or 1/30) seconds (it is implied but not strictly stated in the article). At least it seems to me you can't really (in regular film - capturing at regular speed) expose the film longer. I would like to know if I'm wrong about the time length (I could see longer times for special effects). I could see that the shutter speed would actually (at least in film, maybe not so much digitally) be a little shorter as you have to advance the film at some point. Is that time a drop in the bucket?

Now, back to the video games, it seems illogical that you would get a headache from motion blur per se. IF it was "correctly" done. And I think they do with CGI in films. In video games you really do not have time to do it well and fast because of time constraints on CPU/GPU power. I do not play games myself, can anyone confirm that motion blur just works in some other games? Different games could do it better (have better algorithms). You might also have a more powerful computer. comp.arch (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

See e.g. Optical resolution#Sensor resolution (temporal) (but still doesn't answer all of my questions]). comp.arch (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)