yes, just as Digipic says, you can use the picture as a texture. however, the maximum size for a texture on current graphiccards tops around 4096 (maybe 8192) pixels square, so you’ll have to split your texture into multiple quadratic pieces (else the image quality suffers badly). you can then apply those textures onto multiple quads arranged in a grid, most comfortably with the GridSplit node, and then move those around with Transform nodes of your choice.
if all the textures fit into the memory of your graphics card at once, it could even run smooth.
you are right about the quad-stripe.
and i think you also understood the one-texture approach, but missed a point about how textures are handled in the graphics card and dx9 (also read here):
first off, the maximum size of a texture is around 8192 pixels in both width and height. if you try to load any texture bigger than that, it will be scaled down, resulting in diminished image quality.
second, all textures should have square dimensions - since upon loading them into the graphic cards memory, they are made square no matter which aspect ratio they had before. although as far as i know this process enlarges the texture (to fit the smaller dimension to the larger one), there will be some interpolation involved that might degrade image quality. you might get better results by preparing your textures in square dimensions yourself.
third, all textures are loaded in sizes that are powers of 2. any texture that is not 16x16, 32x32, 64x64, 128x128 and so on up to 8192x8192 pixels in size will be scaled to fit these dimensions. i don’t know wether they will be made to fit the next larger or the next smaller dimension, but either way there could be a loss in image quality.
with that in mind, there really is no option: you need to slice your one big texture into multiple smaller square textures and put them on multiple quads.
a motion blur effect can be realized with any method.
diki: Right now, Im reading a book about DX9 - quite interesting, but its written there that DX9 can handle 256x256 much faster than other sizes. Dont ask me why - something about its architecture. Did hear that as well?
I’ve been making a patch which has 16 x 1024x1024 DDS textures compressed with DXT3 arranged in a big strip.
When I first loaded it the whole system (amd 2x3800 2gig ram, radeon x1600xt)was terribly slow until I moved the renderer to the second monitor and full screened it. At that point I got amazingly good performance, it zips around 3d space very nicely. Not tried chaining many fx on top of it yet, and I’m going to try adding another strip in front of this one with DXT5 compression using alpha.