> 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"?

Depending on your scene, and the location of the camera, rotating the 
camera can result in uterly unreasonable offsets, like accidently 
diverging camera axis or excessive convergence.
It's usualy beter to translate the camera /after/ you set the look_at 
point for images like paysages or points of interest a fair distance 
from the camera.
If the point of interest is close to the camera, then, it may beter to 
translate the camera, then, set the look_at point at the same location 
for both views. This correspond to the natural converging of the eyes 
when looking to something close.

>
>>>
>>> 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?

Yes, the camera's horizontal field ov fiew in degrees.

dependent on how the image is to be viewed.

>
>
> Mike

Alain

Post a reply to this message