rF2 screen shots.

That's Formula Renault 3.5 I believe, without it's front wing.

 

Amazing!

 

Wow!

 

That's it! I am going home sick right now!

 

Amazing!!!

 

indeed, But it was 20 pages ago. I'm not sure if is it good idea to quote such old posts

 

OK. Now release the Clio, ISI!!!!

 

It`s not so much about the car going forwards and the blur going backwards imo mate...

Look at your pic below:



The blue line going through from the front wheels to the back is the direction the car is going in... now the red line is the direction or angle you`ve put on with the blur but imo the trees (therefor the red line) should be the same, or very nearly the same as the blue line but it`s not, it`s a far more of an angle.

I`m no expert and don`t get me wrong, I`m not saying this is a hard and fast rule at all but it is something that you`ll see in real life photos of this kind, IE a car moving from the right to the left of the screen will pretty much have the motion blur going in the same direction.

If you were standing at the side of the track with a camera and saw the car coming and started to pan the camera from right to left to get your shot all the motion blur would be going the same way, as in the EG pic below (Not one of mine sadly)



Anyway, totally up to you Nismo but I hope that makes what I was trying to say, more clear.

 

Thankyou for that wallpaper

 

Your welcome

 

You're wrong.

There are many aspect in a photo that affect the ratio between blur direction and the real path of the moving object. This is not the car MOTION BLUR...but a blurring caused by the shot using different techniques as anticipation, following the target, prefocusing and waiting, autofocus during panning etc..

The most important is Perspective as you have different lines projection for different focal lens; wide, wide to normal, normal to tele.

A wide lens gets huge projection differences for short distances (high barrel distortion)...whereas a normal to tele lens gets a better parallelism for perpendicular angles shots and much more precision for line projections (low barrel distortion). The most dramatic effect is achieved using wide lenses and panning techniques...and the result is a back/front blurring with the partial focus on the target (car). The blur direction will be coherent with the lens distortion...

Another aspect you've to keep in mind is that the blur direction (especially for non-perpendicular shots) could be linked to the reflex relative movement to keep the object in target and shot the car (targeting method Vs anticipation)...

The reflex angular movement and the car motion are not forced to be linked in any way...

 

Well first off I did say it wasn`t a hard and fast rule so there is room for differing interpretations and differing circumstances when the background blur will be slightly different than the angle of the moving onject, in this case, a fast moving car.

Mostly though, from what I`ve seen, if the panning is good (done by a pro type of good) then the motion blur will (to a reasonable degree) follow the angle of the car.

It does pretty much in your eg pic:



Although the cams in sims/games are very good and I`m sure will get much better over time they don`t represent the shot as if it were taken by a good quality camera with good glass in front of it. I know they can but it takes a lot of trial and error to do imo.

Anyway, as I said to Nismo, I`m no expert I`m just going by a lot of real photos I`ve seen taken by some top notch photographers and the way I edit screens/photos myself. I was only offering some advice that imo and my opinion only thought would enhance the screen.

I have to say though, that I`ve also edited screens that don`t follow this and the motion blur is going in different directions. It can create quite a nice effect sometimes imo.

I do think though that in the screen by Nismo that started this that it would look a little better with the blur having more of the same angle as the car, but that`s just my opinion.

 

You're drawing arbitrary lines above pictures with its own perspective lines linked to the focal lenght... In the nismo shot you've used as example...your red lines on tire axis could be look totally different if you switch to a wide angle...with the same background distance. You can get an almost flat background (distant projection plane) with very distorted projection for nearest object as the subject... So you can pan your camera from streight left to right (or viceversa) motion to stabilize your car and get a background blurring with a different path...as my example shows...

You can't draw arbitrary lines above shots to prove your theory..as you've to work with other variables as lens distortion, lines projection for the focal lens and the reflex panning motion.

Your theory is most suitable for perpendicular shot..where the photographer use the same panning motion path as the car...far less for front cornering shots and/or personal style shot using non-standard pannings and wide lenses...

BTW...the nismo shot shows a very small gap between your arbitrary angles..and this is pretty
realistic.

Uh...I know mate..and I'm trying to explain how racing car photographY works. I'm a professional cinematographer and video operator (I was...as I left for the CGI field)...so you can trust.

 

A few unedited shots from build 90.

 

Well if your a pro cinematographer you`ll certainly know more on the subject than I but for the type of shot I`m talking about (a side on or almost side on shot as Nismo`s is) I don`t think I`m wrong in what I`m saying...

Your also talking about using different lenses etc which as I`ve said is by no means impossible to re-create with game cams but it is quite hard (imo)

There`s nothing wrong with my lines either imo as if panned properly (the same path as the car) then the lines would be pretty much the same, as they are in your eg pic imo. There`s hardly any difference at all in the lines I put on your pic but more difference in the lines I put on Nismo`s shot...

Anyway, I didn`t really want to start a deep conversation about it, I just wanted to pass a small comment on one of Nismo`s shots is all although I fully appreciate your expertise on the subject.

I`m well aware that in real photography, using different lenses etc, having the car go past you side on and also having it more coming towards you will all result in different shots with different angles of blur etc but for a near side on shot I think I`m right in what I`m saying...

 

I think you're taking it too personal...so I'll try to find a common way, then I stop it as I see you're trying to start an infinite and useless (for me) discussion....


If you're saying that a great shot have to keep much more as possible the panning blur similar to the car motion path...to get the maximum sense of speed and the perfect shot...I can say ok! That's works! You've to follow as much as possible the car motion path to stabilize the car itself...


If you're saying me that panning blurs and car motion path have to be 100% identical (same angle) to be realistic I say..hmmm nope. That's not true.


For easy shots, where you can use almost parallels pannings a good shot have to be as you said...but it's not true that little angle gaps (as the Nismo shot) are wrong just because the fact we've a lot of variables to manage and the method you're suggesting (2d lines above 3d images and/or real photos) is wrong.


IRONIC MODE ON // If we want going maniacal and boring...we could say;...hey, trees was moving itself due the wind so they have their own motion, the car shot hasn't the proper lens distortion...there is a square blur mask above the car antenna...there is not a proper shutter angle realism for the nearest part of the track...the rim motion blur is not coherent with the shutter speed needed to have this amount of light in the shot...etc etc. etc.. IRONIC MODE OFF//


Enjoy the game....

 

well...I believe you are both taking it too personal, its Fonnismos photo for a start...

 

Nah...I'm easy. I love nismo and tj69 shots, they've a very good eye for angles and atmospheres... I was just trying to put my 2cents on the desk. Maybe the language barrier do not help me too much...and technical stuffs sounds boring most of the time..