home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Light ROM 4
/
Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso
/
text
/
maillist
/
1995
/
1095.doc
/
001244_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Sat Oct 21 08:24:09 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-11-07
|
2KB
Received: by mail.webcom.com
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA055309049; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 08:24:09 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com>
Received: from earth.usa.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA055249044; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 08:24:05 -0700
Received: (from jgjones@localhost) by earth.usa.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) id JAA07550 for lightwave@mail.webcom.com; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 09:16:32 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 09:16:32 -0600
From: James Jones/Nibbles and Bits <jgjones@usa.net>
Reply-To: James Jones/Nibbles and Bits <jgjones@usa.net>
Message-Id: <199510211516.JAA07550@earth.usa.net>
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 737
Sender: owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: FR
Dwarner@lori.albany.net said:
>On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Ken VanBrocklin wrote:
>
>> I have gotten away from using field rendering. It was reccomended to
>> me some time ago to start using motion blur instead.
>
>What's the consensus on this subject? Does Field-Rendering generate
>better-looking output than Full-Frame rendering with Motion Blur and/or
>Soft Filter?
What about field-rendering AND motion-blur (un-dithered) at the
same time?
(Just something I've been meaning to experiment with ...as soon
as my dang replacement PVR drive gets here... :)
-Jim
James G. Jones
Nibbles & Bits
jgjones@usa.net
___
* UniQWK #5134*
--
James Jones/Nibbles and Bits <jgjones@usa.net> sent this message.
To Post a Message : lightwave@webcom.com
Un/Subscription Requests To : lightwave-request@webcom.com
(DIGEST) or : lightwave-digest-request@webcom.com
Administrative Items To : owner-lightwave@webcom.com