How to imply speed?

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:31 pm

Hi all,

I have a photograph of an object, which I want to use in a drawing, in such a way that it implies speed. It want it to appear to come towards the viewer, at high speed.

I want the front of the object (which is closest to the viewer) to be crisp clear (so the fine details are well visible) and then towards the rear of the object, more and more blur should appear.

I looked in "Filters" -> "Motion Blur" and that gives me the effect I look for, but it does that on the while object. I would like it to follow a linear gradient, from no blur at one end to maximum blur at the other end.

Can this effect be made in Inkscape and if yes, how do I achieve that?

EarlyBlake · Postby **EarlyBlake** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:42 pm

Ummmm open the file in gimp?

just kidding :lol:

or

Is this what you are looking for http://www.inkscape.org/screenshots/gal ... ffield.png if not then filters.

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:05 am

EarlyBlake wrote:Ummmm open the file in gimp? just kidding or

I tried that already. There's a motion blur in Gimp as well, it has a little more settings that you can tweak than in Inkscape, but again, it affects the whole image.
I have no experience at all with Gimp, therefore, when it's possible in Inkscape, I prefer that tool.

Is this what you are looking for http://www.inkscape.org/screenshots/gal ... ffield.png if not then filters.

Not entirely, but it comes in the neighborhood, thanks for the link anyways.

I could create that already by photographing the object with a different camera setting.

I'm more looking for a "rear part " of the image that resembles what you see in the image you can see here.

EarlyBlake · Postby **EarlyBlake** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:46 am

You can select an area to preform a gimp filter effect on with gimp. Gimp has version of a vector tool. (It's called the path tool.) I'm not saying it would be fun or efficient in gimp. In fact every time I use gimps vector-ish tool I pull some hair out. But it can be done. I haven't used it but it seems like gimp must have some kind of mask function so you could blur on one layer and mask part of it out. Then blend it with the non blurred layer.

The Inkscape filter interface intimidates me. So if you use the Inkscape filters write me a tutorial

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:49 am

EarlyBlake wrote:In fact every time I use gimps vector-ish tool I pull some hair out.

Hmmm, can't have that... isn't too much left already

Thaks, I will look into it tonight.

EarlyBlake · Postby **EarlyBlake** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:03 am

If you don't want to do any of the above. And you don't need a speed racers kind of striated line effect: Do say 4 progressively larger blurs on multiple layers and mask to so 15% to 20% of each blur showing through the mask then stack (and possible shift) blurs to look ruffly like that. Or even quicker and dirtier blur the whole thing in gimp. And do two masks in Inkscape one to hold back the blur area and one to hold back the none blurred area. Using blurred mask to someting likefeaturing. Still even quicker gimp motion blur clip the blur part. Probably have to do a dynamic outset and blur on the path you use to clip!

The path tool in gimp is truly terrible. You have to hold down the control or shift key or change modes via a menu to shift the handles or add or subtract nodes. It might be worth is to do the mask in inkscape the Gimp GUI is so bad.

Postby **prkos** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:58 am

I would expect that Interpolate effect also takes blur into account, if you have a blurred object on one side and non blurred object on the other I'd expect the in between objects have different blur applied to them, according to how close they are to one or the other end, but it doesn't happen.

>>I got an answer from dev list, it just hasn't been implemented yet. If anyone wants a go at it it's in interp.py

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:14 pm

OK, an update.

I'm still in "investigating stage" on how this can be done best. I've been playing with several options, including the ones mentioned here, but have also been playing around myself.

My best result so far, I obtained in The Gimp (or was it Photoshop?), by chopping up the original photographs in a number of parts, doing a morion blur on each individual part, with different settings (mainly angle, because of the perspective) and then glue those parts together again. I can't show this yet, unfortunately.

One other point that has become important since I started this thread: speed. And this time speed of rendering this in a PDF. I want to use the "speedy object" in a larger drawing which will be distributed in a PDF. And it turns out that with the DEV version (which is better in exporting functionality into a PDF than ), the PDF becomes real "slow" to render when there's several blurred objects in the original SVG. There's another post on that already so I think it's better to do this outside Inkscape and import it into Inkscape as a raster image.

capnhud · Postby **capnhud** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:49 am

are you referring to something such as this

this is something definitely more suitable for a raster editor.

EarlyBlake · Postby **EarlyBlake** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:35 pm

ErikTiePie wrote:My best result so far, I obtained in The Gimp (or was it Photoshop?), by chopping up the original photographs in a number of parts, doing a morion blur on each individual part, with different settings (mainly angle, because of the perspective) and then glue those parts together again. I can't show this yet, unfortunately.

Did you use zoom motion blur? You can dummy up some perspective with that depending on were you put the center of the blur.

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:11 pm

capnhud wrote:are you referring to something such as this

this is something definitely more suitable for a raster editor.

Yes, that comes very close to what I want, thanks a lot for the link

I had come to the conclusion myself already that this would be better done in raster editor, so I had already started looking in that direction. Problem is just that these apps (Gimp. Photoshop) can do so much more than I know of.....

I'll investigate this and see how it works out.

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:13 pm

EarlyBlake wrote:
ErikTiePie wrote:My best result so far, I obtained in The Gimp (or was it Photoshop?), by chopping up the original photographs in a number of parts, doing a morion blur on each individual part, with different settings (mainly angle, because of the perspective) and then glue those parts together again. I can't show this yet, unfortunately.

Did you use zoom motion blur? You can dummy up some perspective with that depending on were you put the center of the blur.

Hmmm, that's interesting, didn't know of that feature, thanks for mentioning. I'll give it a try.

I'm rather busy right with several things so please don't expect a result real soon...

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:26 pm

EarlyBlake wrote:Did you use zoom motion blur? You can dummy up some perspective with that depending on were you put the center of the blur.

I have finally tested this (been out of the running for a while due to a knee operation, torn meniscus, operation successful) en this is exact what I was looking for. By carefully picking the center, it gives me the desired result. I still have to create my final image by gluing a blurred and a non-blurred part together, to keep the front of my object clear and detailed.

Thanks for your input.

EarlyBlake · Postby **EarlyBlake** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:14 am

Off topic:

ErikTiePie wrote:I have finally tested this (been out of the running for a while due to a knee operation, torn meniscus, operation successful) en this is exact what I was looking for. By carefully picking the center, it gives me the desired result. I still have to create my final image by gluing a blurred and a non-blurred part together, to keep the front of my object clear and detailed.

Ouch sounds painful. Hope it heals up.

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:43 am

EarlyBlake wrote:
Off topic:
Ouch sounds painful. Hope it heals up.

Off topic:

Actually, now I've had surgery, not anymore. They used arthrosopy, minimal invasion technique, only three small incisions of each less than 1 cm.

ErikTiePie · Postby **ErikTiePie** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:55 pm

The result can be seen here

The effect I made was perfectly described by my colleague, when he first saw the result:

it's like the starship Enterprise (StarTrek) coming out of warp.

And that was exactly what I wanted to achieve

This is a read-only archive of the inkscapeforum.com site. You can search for info here or post new questions and comments at inkscape.org/forums

This is a read-only archive of the inkscapeforum.com site. This feature is no longer available.

InkscapeForum.com

How to imply speed?

How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Re: How to imply speed?

Who is online