 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] iname com> wrote in message
news:39cf6b29@news.povray.org...
| "Bob Hughes" wrote:
|
| > If wanting a complete 360 degree field shown as rectangular
| > that requires greater than 360 degree field...
| > how can that be done then?
|
| Since when has angles greater than 360 degrees been a problem? Read the
| documentation.
I was just trying to go on one simple thought about it, I haven't checked
into any of it. What I was saying is that if there were a fisheye
projection (for lack of a better word) having rectangular boundaries then
your solution would be using a angle going to the corners not the sides.
That means loss of field of view for a fraction of the whole intended by a
given angle in the camera, ie. 360 is seen only at the corners of a square
aspect resolution and not the sides. Clipped.
| > It would have limitations anyhow.
|
| Exactly what is that statement based on? Facts? I don't think so.
| Indications? I don't see any. To me it is obvious that it would actually
| have no limitations at all. It even works perfectly with the clumsy method
I
| provided.
I would guess it's all in how such a thing would be implemented.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I keep telling everybody I *know* I found a patch to the fisheye camera that
filled the whole rectangle on the 'Net once, but I'm been looking high and
low and don't see it any more. I believe the demo images showed a chess set.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> What I was saying is that if there were a fisheye projection
> having rectangular boundaries then your solution would be
> using a angle going to the corners not the sides.
No, the angle keyword should control the horizontal angle as always, not the
diagonal angle.
> That means loss of field of view for a fraction of the
> whole intended by a given angle in the camera, ie. 360 is
> seen only at the corners of a square aspect resolution
> and not the sides. Clipped.
No, there would not have to be any clipping. It would be like this:
The areas that are currently black would not be black anymore.
It really can't get anymore simple than that.
To see what I mean, look in povray.binaries.images
> I would guess it's all in how such a thing would be implemented.
I can't argue against that. They could always choose to implement it in a
strange way.
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated August 7)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> I keep telling everybody I *know* I found a patch to the
> fisheye camera that filled the whole rectangle on the
> 'Net once, but I'm been looking high and low and don't
> see it any more.
That's a shame! :-(
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated August 7)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
