-
Why do we need motion blur at all?
Is it because the frame rate is still relatively slow compared to the relevant time scale for the human eye? What if we had the option of a million fps? Would we still need motion blur?
More importantly, is it OK to not use it? I made a nice lower third thingie that has two adjacent parts. But when I use motion blur, the parts come apart and then I can see the layer underneath which was not supposed to happen since they were placed adjacent.
-
2 Replies
-
The shutter speed of a camera is usually low enough to capture motion blur, but creating motion graphics doesn’t involve a shutter of course, so each frame is perfectly sharp. Standard frame rates are too low for human eyes to naturally blur the created motion, so AE provides a way to simulate that. I believe around 200 fps is the point where the eye doesn’t need fake motion blur.
I say it is perfectly ok not to use motion blur. If it looks better with it off, go with it off! A lower third sliding onto a screen doesn’t have to simulate the real world, since it’s not in the real world. It all depends on the look you are going for.
-
“2001’s” special effects team was supervised by Kubrick himself, and included Con Pederson, Wally Veevers, and Douglas Trumbull,(see here this interesting paper :https://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/dfx.html
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up