Add note clarifying behavior object motion blur #104956

Merged
Aaron Carlisle merged 3 commits from iss/blender-manual:mb into main 2024-10-21 03:34:40 +02:00
Ref: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/128697
Richard Antalik added 1 commit 2024-10-08 23:53:05 +02:00
Richard Antalik requested review from Sergey Sharybin 2024-10-08 23:53:57 +02:00
Richard Antalik requested review from Aaron Carlisle 2024-10-08 23:53:57 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin reviewed 2024-10-09 10:19:51 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin left a comment
Owner

I'm not sure that is the way to word it. Something like this reads easier: Disabled motion blur for an object only applies to that object movement.

Movement does not seem to be the correct word, though: intuitively, movement does not include scale, but animated scale will cause motion blur as well.

Explicit mention of camera motion could work as an example, but there are more cases when camera might cause motion blur: for example, animated field of view.

Also feels a bit strange to have this clarification for the relative behavior of camera and object, but not objects parented to a moving parent with motion blur disabled.

I'm not sure that is the way to word it. Something like this reads easier: Disabled motion blur for an object only applies to that object movement. Movement does not seem to be the correct word, though: intuitively, movement does not include scale, but animated scale will cause motion blur as well. Explicit mention of camera motion could work as an example, but there are more cases when camera might cause motion blur: for example, animated field of view. Also feels a bit strange to have this clarification for the relative behavior of camera and object, but not objects parented to a moving parent with motion blur disabled.
Sergey Sharybin requested review from Sergey Sharybin 2024-10-09 10:21:15 +02:00
Richard Antalik added 1 commit 2024-10-13 03:56:25 +02:00
Author
Member

Movement does not seem to be the correct word, though: intuitively, movement does not include scale, but animated scale will cause motion blur as well.

I guess motion should be more general. It's in the name after all...

Explicit mention of camera motion could work as an example, but there are more cases when camera might cause motion blur: for example, animated field of view.

Ok, I will mention these cases as example.

Also feels a bit strange to have this clarification for the relative behavior of camera and object, but not objects parented to a moving parent with motion blur disabled.

Not sure about this case, if object A is parented to object B, only the one with motion blur enabled is blurred.

> Movement does not seem to be the correct word, though: intuitively, movement does not include scale, but animated scale will cause motion blur as well. I guess motion should be more general. It's in the name after all... > Explicit mention of camera motion could work as an example, but there are more cases when camera might cause motion blur: for example, animated field of view. Ok, I will mention these cases as example. > Also feels a bit strange to have this clarification for the relative behavior of camera and object, but not objects parented to a moving parent with motion blur disabled. Not sure about this case, if object A is parented to object B, only the one with motion blur enabled is blurred.

The updated wording seems better.
I'd leave the final review to Aaron, and poke Cycles if they have some strong recommendations.

The updated wording seems better. I'd leave the final review to Aaron, and poke Cycles if they have some strong recommendations.
Member

Adding a clarification sound fine to me.
For the wording, I guess the first statement is true whether or not the option is disabled, so we don't need to say "disabled motion blur". I could suggest something like
"This option only applies to the motion of the object itself. Disabling it does not affect motion blur from other sources, such as camera motion or animated focal length.”

Adding a clarification sound fine to me. For the wording, I guess the first statement is true whether or not the option is disabled, so we don't need to say "disabled motion blur". I could suggest something like "This option only applies to the motion of the object itself. Disabling it does not affect motion blur from other sources, such as camera motion or animated focal length.”
Richard Antalik added 1 commit 2024-10-18 10:55:42 +02:00
Author
Member

Adding a clarification sound fine to me.
For the wording, I guess the first statement is true whether or not the option is disabled, so we don't need to say "disabled motion blur". I could suggest something like
"This option only applies to the motion of the object itself. Disabling it does not affect motion blur from other sources, such as camera motion or animated focal length.”

Sounds good to me, updated the note with this wording.

> Adding a clarification sound fine to me. > For the wording, I guess the first statement is true whether or not the option is disabled, so we don't need to say "disabled motion blur". I could suggest something like > "This option only applies to the motion of the object itself. Disabling it does not affect motion blur from other sources, such as camera motion or animated focal length.” Sounds good to me, updated the note with this wording.
Sergey Sharybin approved these changes 2024-10-18 11:39:37 +02:00
Aaron Carlisle approved these changes 2024-10-21 03:34:28 +02:00
Aaron Carlisle merged commit 77bf14662f into main 2024-10-21 03:34:40 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender-manual#104956
No description provided.