Seems to me it would be the same as the physical
camera attachment, just four mirrors at 45 degree
angles.

 |    |
 |    |
 \-\/-/
   ||
   __

You don't need to converge on the object, if the
outer mirror separation distance is right. Almost
all stereo cameras, and most stereo photography
using two synchronized cameras, use parallel
lenses to avoid keystone distortion. Then again
I could be wrong. Keep me informed.

Harold


"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b29105e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3b290e40$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Yep, should work. In the real world we have
> > mirrors for 3D photography. They're often
> > called "beam-splitter" attachments for regular
> > 35mm cameras. The term is a misnomer because the
> > beam of light is not split, the frame of film is
> > split.
>
>     Exactly.
>
> > So you'd render at double width? Something
> > like 1600x600?
>
>     Something like. The problem seems to be getting the secondary mirrors
to
> angle correctly to "look_at" the object. Vector math... I hate it... I'm
> getting nowhere.
>
>

Post a reply to this message