>>53351216Sorry, what I mean is that the photo is too blurry to be worth anything. If I took a photo like that I'd throw it out.
>>53351273>you are simply blurring the image while motion blur is often a blurring in one direction rather than both waysThat's because I'm trying to make the horns match the photograph like you insist is so easy, but no matter how much I blur it to the left or right, it doesn't gain any vertical length like in the photo, even if we try to do it diagonally to account for it moving (which is what I did in
>>53351099, there's a slight upward angle to that blur that you didn't pick up on lol), that still doesn't generate enough length the horns to become long and thin.
I think I've managed to get something close to what the photo looks like, but to reach it, I had to make it so the blur was coming from a vertical angle, which would require treads to be going downwards...which he isn't doing.
But I think we're losing the plot here. For the like third time, we're way blurrier than the actual photograph by now. Great Tusk is not moving down a hill at 10000mph, he's walking slowly to the left. The only way you're going to get something that looks like the photograph from the horns that makes it so motion blur applies is if we make the blur both extremely powerful AND have it directed in a direction Tusk is not moving.
