On 2010-12-15 18:28, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.12.2010 00:09, schrieb CShake:
>> On 2010-12-15 12:16, clipka wrote:
>>> I did some test renders, including a scene trying to mimick the specific
>>> properties of yours (just rings randomly arranged in a spherical shell,
>>> I guess I suck at maille ;-)), but I can't reproduce the symptoms you
>>> see. Are you absolutely positively sure that you only changed the
>>> camera?
>>>
>>> Did you also cross-check with 3.6, whether the effect can be seen there
>>> as well?
>>>
>>> Do you think you could come up with a minimal scene showing the symptom?
>>
>> I've identified it as my "make it look like there is a camera in the
>> reflection" part. I put an object with a surface 0.001 units directly
>> behind the camera, and that is what does it. Minimal scene as follows,
>> most of the positioning numbers are just lifted from the scene I was
>> using so they're arbitrary. This works no matter the version keyword
>> while rendering in beta40, and also happens in 3.6.1c.
>
> You should tilt the object according to the camera's orientation.
> Otherwise, some of the rays shot may originate from inside that object,
> explaining why everything gets pretty dark.
>
> The focal blur camera works essentially by randomly ofsetting the camera
> location in the plane perpendicular to the nominal "viewing axis".

Ah, makes sense. I assume the range of motion is proportional to the 
aperture for the blur, is there a specific ratio to use as a guide for 
keeping objects far enough away, say if you were to make a model of a 
real lens body and put the camera inside it? (or I could just use 
no_image I guess)

Post a reply to this message