 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't there a fish eye camera patch out there that filled the whole screen?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wasn't there a fish eye camera patch out there that filled the whole screen?
I made a spherical camera that is capable of capturing the whole scene from the
viewpoint of the camera in a single rectangular image. It's a little different
than the fisheye but is the only camera type that I know of that can fill the
entire frame with a 360 FOV. The patch is in MegaPOV.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I know of your patch, but I believe there was another.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> | If you want to get rid of the circular confinement do this:
> |
> | Render your image with double angle and in double resolution
> | and use these command line settings:
> | +sc0.25 +sr0.25 +ec0.75 +er0.75
>
> That's simply a image formatting thing, nothing to do with the
> ray trace itself anyway.
I completely disagree. My example was just meant to show that the mapping
type in itself can indeed produce images without the circular confinement.
The actual fix will be much more simple.
> So the actual fix that could work is to somehow expand the
> partial render to fit the full resolution by predicting a
> field of view.
That would be crazy. Don't tell me a completely new method is needed to
obtain result that are completely similar except for some black pixels in
the corners. I'm sure that removing the circular confinement will be really
easy; probably it'll be about removing some code rather than adding some.
Making it optional will require a bit more work probably but I'm sure that
would be rather easy too.
> 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.
> 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ultra Wide Angle should be close to fisheye, and it fills the full Rectangular
area. I haven't looked at the formulas, but the docs point that out.
Johs
Rune wrote:
> In the fisheye camera type I'd like the confinement to a circular area to be
> optional. I think that would make it a much more useful camera type.
>
> This suggestion is not meant for any specific version of POV-Ray.
>
> 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 July 23)
> / Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritone com
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Josh English" wrote:
> Ultra Wide Angle should be close to fisheye, and it fills the
> full Rectangular area. I haven't looked at the formulas, but
> the docs point that out.
Maybe they look rather similar when the angle is shallow, but then, most of
the different camera types do. Ultra Wide Angle is a completely different
camera type than fisheye.
Greetings,
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
