On 1/12/2016 7:52 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 2:17 PM, clipka wrote:
>> By /adding/ a "look_at" statement? ;)
>>
>> For starters you might get away ok without look_at.
>>
>> What you really need to do is translate the camera a bit to the left
>> (for the
>> left eye) or the right (for the right eye) -- which is actually a deal
>> easier if
>> you don't use look_at, because with that statement you'd have to
>> compute your
>> effective left/right axis "manually".
>
> Okay, but I was thinking that rotating by a small amount would be
> better. Otherwise the point of interest gets translated too. Should I
> use real-world measurements for the distance between the "eyes"?
>

I don't completly agree with Clipka. You can use the look_at to set the 
convergance. That is how you place objects in front or behind the 
screen. So with the look_at set you just translate the camera left and 
right. As for the distance to use for your baseline. It should be the 
distance between your eyes in relation to the scale of your scene.

A simple explanation at the beginning of this article.

http://www.sky.com/shop/__PDF/3D/Basic_Principles_of_Stereoscopic_3D_v1.pdf


>>>
>>> Also, is there a particular angle of view I should be aiming for?
>>
>> That depends on the (apparent) angle at which the image will be
>> visible using
>> that contraption.
>>
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean. By angle of view I mean the camera
> angle. Is there some natural angle that is most like human vision?
>

Without getting arty ;) use between 40° and 60° that is roughly a 50mm lens.

How are you going to drive your "Cardboard", what software?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message