ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in
news:vsc95v0r3865921t5ivnsl9touq2bs0m5s@4ax.com: 

>...
> Apart from mentioned
> (http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30539/) a few posts
> above

Yes I read that thread. It is good that you have got
your patch working. Now I'm just waiting for you to
release a compiled patch ;)


> user_defined camera type there will be probably another
> addition in MegaPOV 1.1 - pigment type called camera_view similiar
> to old Portal patch.

Yesterday I skimmed through some old "portal" threads
by Chris Huff. I did not get all of it, so I'll have
to read through them more thoroughly later to see
what went on in that patch.


> It isn't the same what you did but no doubts
> all together (your macros, my patches) it will be powerful set of
> tools in designing scenes.

Yes, I hope so.


> Camera_view pigment will be image_map
> viewed for specified camera and placed like all images in
> <0,0>-<1,1>. So it means: 
> 
> pigment{
>   camera_view{
>     // camera type
>     location ...
>     direction ...
>     angle ...
>     // and other typical camera parameters
>   }
> }
> 
> or
> 
> #local MyCamera = camera{ /* typical definition */ }
> 
> pigment{ camera_view{ MyCamera } }
> 
> So at the same time you can view camera with your macro and view
> camera_view placed with my pigment.

I'm not sure if I understand this right...

Do you mean that the image a camera can "see" is made
available the same way as an image_map is ?

That would be useful !


> No doubts we should coordinate used names becouse doubled
> CAMERA_VIEW name applied to significantly different features can
> confuse in the future. 

Ok, I'll soon send you the latest verion of my
camera include file. And then I'll wait for any
comments or suggestions from you about naming etc.


> A lot of good work in your macros, Tor.

=)


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message