CompuServe Messages

Well here are my quick results: My scene contains a single complex figure, a "hood ornament", that is a metallic female figure with wings, a heavy-metal angel so to speak. She is beating her wings down in a single stroke, 30 frames, the camera angle is out near the tip of one wing so as it passes, the movement is substantial. Machine: Gateway 2000 P5-90, 16Meg Ram, rendering to a clean local drive. Test1: 640×480, 24bit, Photo, Anti-alias Started out around 4:05 per frame. Render times were up a little in the middle due to large number of ray-bounces off the complex reflective surfaces. Total time about 2.5 hours. Test2: 640×480, 24bit, Photo, Motion-Blur Stared out around 8:10 per frame with upwards over 10:00 per. Total time about 5 hours but didn't see the last frames. P.S. Machine was otherwise unoccupied. Conclude: Motion-blur seems to result in roughly double the rendering time. I could see the motion-blur effect in Painter when I inspected the frames but the effect was very subtle at least for this scene. I watched both renderings at length and darned if the effect was noticible – certainly not worth twice the time. As far as I can see the motion blur effect only occurs when the displacement is so great that persistence of vision serves much the same function. On a per-frame basis, I though the result was not attractive. If I wanted a single rendered frame with a motion-bluring effect, I would probably render multiple frames and composite them as an after-effect. Other impressions of motion-blur?