On 2017-03-17 3:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 16-3-2017 15:22, David Buck wrote:
>> On 2017-03-16 8:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 16-3-2017 10:24, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
>>>>
>>>> Realism is over rated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. It is very much 20th century's.
>>>
>>
>> I wish I could somehow stand on that beach and look up into that sky. It
>> looks phenomenal.  I wonder what it would take to render a version that
>> can be used with an Oculus or GearVR.
>>
>> BTW, this is my new desktop background image.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Thank you indeed, David! I am truly honoured.
>
> For an Oculus view, there should more to see than just the image.
> Ideally, the viewer should stand in the centre of the landscape. Here,
> there are several limitations, not the least being the star scape which
> is only a vertical plane. I chose that option to limit excessive
> deformation of the Apophysis flame in a spherical projection. So, the
> scene would need to be re-thought profoundly. Not impossible but a
> serious overhaul indeed.
>
> I have some free time so, if we can charter an ftl ship, we may be able
> to assemble quite crew to go and explore. :-)
>
>
> [in the meantime, working towards version 2...]
>

The other issue is that POV-Ray's camera is based on a flat plane in 
front of the viewpoint.  To get a VR view, you'd probably have to change 
POV-Ray source code to introduce a VR camera that properly distorts the 
image.

David

Post a reply to this message