 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"cbpypov" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Here are some more fixes (attached). The scaling of Screen_Object was broken for
> ortho-cam.
Carlo,
Thanks very much for looking through the screen.inc code and finding those
problems and fixing them.
I think I had noticed some anomalies when I was working out the visible camera
view frustum
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.587ce3fc782d1af2c437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=415328
but I never got around to pursuing and identifying any bugs that might have been
in there.
We're always very appreciative of anyone who can make improvements and fixes to
the collection of tools that we have :)
I hope the first few frames of your animation are coming out well, and the final
result makes a big impression!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.11.2017 um 15:35 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> Optionally, or in addition to that, include the date of the revision first, in
> European format - so that it's easily sorted and the latest revision "rises to
> the top".
Most European countries traditionally use DMY ordering for dates, which
isn't any better for sorting than US format; the European format is just
more self-consistent.
When dates are to be sorted alphabetically, ISO format works best (YMD;
more precisely, YYYY-MM-DD).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Most European countries traditionally use DMY ordering for dates, which
> isn't any better for sorting than US format; the European format is just
> more self-consistent.
>
> When dates are to be sorted alphabetically, ISO format works best (YMD;
> more precisely, YYYY-MM-DD).
Ah. I mistakenly thought "European format" was the ISO format.
YYYY-MM-DD_(2.0.0)_Screen.inc
might be a good format,
or maybe, since one is likely to search for screen*.inc, then perhaps
Screen_YYYY-MM-DD_(2.0.0)_.inc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To all,
oh, I am so sorry I did not see all your replies ... I posted the file at
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.5a00344aecd2fa6f80db62550%40news.povray.org%3E/
and thought you might respond there. Now when I saw there is still no post of
anyone, I came back here and couldn't believe my eyes :D
So, to catch up a bit, thanks for all those nice words! It's a pleasure to help
with this minimum contribution, ... especially after I received so much of your
help. Since I will use this code now for a larger scene I'll see if I notice any
further bugs. Til now it is working out well.
I'm sorry that I, for the above reasons, missed some of your ideas of how to
format the file/filename. May I post it again with these corrections?
I'll post the final animation when it's done. But it may take time because I'll
do this after I handed in my dissertation (at 2017-11-30 [ISO-format :D]).
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Hmm; I think I'm beginning to see your point (and correct me if I'm wrong): An
> animation with a moving camera is still just a series of discrete static images
> strung together, each with its own 'static' camera position for that frame-- and
> the code does work successfully on individual images with a 'static' camera
> (which is the *only* camera position being rendered at the moment.) So the code
> apparently doesn't need to know or even care about where the *camera* will be
> for the next frame.
>
> I need to take a closer look at your code and try it out; I didn't realize that
> it's camera-agnostic.
>
> Thanks for nudging me to think more clearly about this ;-)
Hey Kenneth,
I did not expect to receive this from you and especially not to make you really
think on this :D ... I hope this does not sound arrogant in any way (sometimes
its difficult to weigh such fragile phrases in a language which is foreign to
me; but at least it is not meant to sound arrogant in any way :) ) ... but it is
maybe because I am a physicist that this seems somehow natural to me. [<- this
sentence is far to long]. However, the way in which you reformulated what I said
appears just correct to me. I did not see anything in POV-Ray that could
distinguish between a `static` and an `animated` render. So POV-Ray itself is
agnostic for that in the first place. It follows that SharkD's code could only
deviate from this fact if it made any "assumption" on a -- say -- default camera
position. Which it does not :) --- q.e.d. :D
Best,
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 06/11/2017 17:42, Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> When dates are to be sorted alphabetically, ISO format works best (YMD;
>> more precisely, YYYY-MM-DD).
> Ah. I mistakenly thought "European format" was the ISO format.
> YYYY-MM-DD_(2.0.0)_Screen.inc
> might be a good format,> or maybe, since one is likely to search for screen*.inc,
then perhaps
> Screen_YYYY-MM-DD_(2.0.0)_.inc
if the file is to be useful on platforms other than Windows, a file name
without parentheses would be better, and the version number would
presumably be specific to a given release date, so
screen-2.0.0.inc
would suffice, or, with a date instead
screen-20171106.inc
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> if the file is to be useful on platforms other than Windows, a file name
> without parentheses would be better, and the version number would
> presumably be specific to a given release date, so
.....
True, I know the version AND date are redundant - I was just thinking about
looking through a directory, and having the date "float" the filename to the
top. But I suppose if they're sorted by date anyway...
I was just ruminating, and figured people would format their revisions however
they wanted anyway. The key point was to vary the filename so all the
different revisions were differentiable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"cbpypov" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ... I hope this does not sound arrogant in any way (sometimes
> its difficult to weigh such fragile phrases in a language which is foreign to
> me; but at least it is not meant to sound arrogant in any way :) ) ... but it is
> maybe because I am a physicist that this seems somehow natural to me.
No need to worry; your command of English is quite good!
'Camera tracking' is very interesting to me; years ago, I modified Rune's
'Illusion Inc' POV-Ray include file in order to match POV-Ray animation to video
(from my Sony camera). Unfortunately, the resulting animations (and the scene
files) are on a hard disk that failed-- which I hope to 'resurrect' at some
point.
Last night, I came across an interesting BBC news item, about Microsoft's
experiments with real-time camera-tracking and 'augmented reality.' It's really
fascinating...
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-41747005/inside-microsoft-s-new-mixed-reality-capture-studio
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "cbpypov" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> 'Camera tracking' is very interesting to me; years ago, I modified Rune's
> 'Illusion Inc' POV-Ray include file in order to match POV-Ray animation to video
> (from my Sony camera). Unfortunately, the resulting animations (and the scene
> files) are on a hard disk that failed-- which I hope to 'resurrect' at some
> point.
>
I just remembered that I posted one of the animations to the newsgroups, years
ago. (It was an old-style .AVI file, compressed using the 'Xvid'
codec/compressor, so I don't know if will play on all machines.) Here's the
link...
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.animations/thread/%3Cweb.52fd51fbee845476c2d977c20%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=41
5656&toff=50
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 06/11/2017 21:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
> True, I know the version AND date are redundant - I was just thinking about
> looking through a directory, and having the date "float" the filename to the
> top. ...
not sure about Windows but if you want to have the most recent files
shown first, using the 'ls' command you'd need to use an option switch
to make it sort in reverse order.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.11.2017 um 09:05 schrieb jr:
> hi,
>
> On 06/11/2017 21:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> True, I know the version AND date are redundant - I was just thinking about
>> looking through a directory, and having the date "float" the filename to the
>> top. ...
>
> not sure about Windows but if you want to have the most recent files
> shown first, using the 'ls' command you'd need to use an option switch
> to make it sort in reverse order.
Nice idea, but there's a catch: All it can sort by is file creation or
last modification time. Which may happen to be the same as the time the
file was originally conceived by the author, but it may just as well be
something entirely different, depending on the toolchain that eventually
placed it on your file system.
Also, no operating system (well, none commonly used anyway) or file
management tool can sort by file name first /and/ timestamp second.
Because you can't have multiple files with the same name but different
timestamps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
