Bill,
I just looked at your diagram and I see what you
mean. Most people who work in stereo would draw
it differently, the lines coming from the object
would be parallel. Our eyes are basically parallel
when viewing things beyond about 6 feet. What you
present in your diagram is similar to what happens
when we look at something very close, like reading
a book. Our eyes converge.
If your objective is to represent a small object
close up, convergence will still not serve you well.
The reason is that most viewing systems present the
images to our eyes in a parallel fashion. As a result
images rendered from convergent perspectives seem
distorted and difficult to view.

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