|
 |
Personally, I have a hard time visualizing why a person
would want to have a camera view that is distorted
in the modeling processes.
Imagine attaching a camera to the end of a crane. If
you decide the crane needs to be longer and wish to
change the length by scaling, what once might have been
a good camera definition gets distorted. Then you would
have to do more scaling to the camera to get back
to the camera definition that you wanted. Very messy.
And having to follow through a long line of #include
files to find what scaling information had been applied to
a model w/ camera attachment... Forcing someone into that
extreme would get lots of negative comments too.
Warp wrote:
>
> Mr. Art <mra### [at] chesapeake net> wrote:
> : But, in these tests I never did use a non uniform scale
>
> Well, there you are.
>
> : I would hope that the camera could be a "special" object type
> : that like lightsources, would only pick up the location/orientation
> : information from the objects they are unioned with.
>
> What if somebody really wants it to be consistent and that non-uniforms
> scales applied to the union would also apply to the camera?
>
> --
> #macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
> rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
> ],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
> 7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
