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

Post a reply to this message

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...]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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

On 2017-03-17 06:11 AM (-4), David Buck wrote:
> 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.

That's true of the perspective and orthographic cameras, but at least 
some of the others cannot have this basis (especially those that allow a 
viewing angle of more than 180!).  So, given that the POV-Ray code 
structure evidently already has this flexibility, a VR camera shouldn't 
be that difficult to integrate.

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/03/2017 à 17:45, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> On 2017-03-17 06:11 AM (-4), David Buck wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That's true of the perspective and orthographic cameras, but at least
> some of the others cannot have this basis (especially those that allow a
> viewing angle of more than 180!).  So, given that the POV-Ray code
> structure evidently already has this flexibility, a VR camera shouldn't
> be that difficult to integrate.
> 
> 
Which VR camera do you need ?

There is already in hgpovray branch the ODS camera from google:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Le_Forgeron#Omni_Directional_Stereo_camera

and IIRC, there is a function camera in some part of uberpov (or is it
somewhere else ?)

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> and IIRC, there is a function camera in some part of uberpov (or is it
> somewhere else ?)

It is somewhere else indeed: The 3.7.1-beta ;)

Post a reply to this message