>
>  Nope. The camera will end at the camera location + ObjectCenter.
The
>look_at, which was at the origin, will end at the object center.
>

    You're right. Strangely, I never had to translate the camera
without having to modify the look-at at the same time yet, except for
rotating it around an object and then the look_at stays the same,
opposite to translations as I discover. (BTW is there any simple way
to spin the camera on itself to look around ?)

>: If I use your method for
>: positionning the camera how do I extract the information about the
>: vector where it is sitting then ?

    The question remains interesting. Using rotations for setting up
the altitude and azimuth leaves me with no clue as how to get the
vector of the camera's location once that set up is done. Is there a
function in POV that achieves that ? I haven't explored thing like
vector functions yet. They still feel a little oesoteric. As I said, I
only know to calculate it through trigonometry : that's how my macro
works. Is there a simpler, more "POV" way to do it? That is an
important piece of information since it allows many tricks, like
attaching the lighting to the camera position or using that position
to set the normal of a clipping plane relative to the point of vue
(did you watch the little clips on my site ?). It's also possible to
move all sorts of objects relative to the point of vue, like other
fishes in a school or an ennemy vessel in a combat.

:     If not...well, I've learned lately that one can make a union of
>: any object in a scene, even if they don't share any space. So I
guess
>: that one could make a union of all there is in the scene, find the
>: coordinates of the point of interest, translate while reversing the
>: signs on the x, y and z values in it so it finds itself at the
origin
>: point rotate the camera at will using your method and once finished
>: put it back in place... I find no major reason for not doing it
that
>: way if it remains transparent always. Would it ?
>
>  Well, if you _really_ want to do it the hard way... I think that
it's
>much easier to just translate the camera instead of the whole scene.


    Mmm... as you know from my technique, I too favor moving the
camera... I was just wondering if... given that all motion is
relative, it made an absolute difference ; one thing is sure, there
would be many more lines of code to write to move the whole world
perfectly. I paid attention to it because that's the way many people
answered that they were doing it, although more on a piece by piece
basis, when they needed to work on a given object for example.

    Thanks Mika (how do you pronounce Juha anyway ? I only know Temu,
Mika, Yari, Yaku... hockey players... )

        Jean

Post a reply to this message