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

Post a reply to this message

Rune <run### [at] inamecom> 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.

  Are you sure the function used to calculate it allows this?

  I wouldn't be surprised if the function uses a square root of a value
which is negative outside that circular area.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> 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.
>
>   Are you sure the function used to calculate it allows this?

Yes, because it is already possible in an indirect way.
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

Tada!

And I *have* tested it. It really is the same down to pixel level.

However, it's a bit tedious to remove the unused part of the image,
especially for animations. That's the reason I would like the confinement to
simply be optional. *I* wouldn't be surprised if it is very easy to do.

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:39ce4f6c@news.povray.org...
| "Warp" wrote:
| > 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.
| >
| >   Are you sure the function used to calculate it allows this?
|
| Yes, because it is already possible in an indirect way.
| 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.  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.
Then you lose part of the fisheye field.  If wanting a complete 360 degree
field shown as rectangular that requires greater than 360 degree field...
how can that be done then?
It would have limitations anyhow.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

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] spiritonecom
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