 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep, should work. In the real world we have
mirrors for 3D photography. They're often
called "beam-splitter" attachments for regular
35mm cameras. The term is a misnomer because the
beam of light is not split, the frame of film is
split. So you'd render at double width? Something
like 1600x600?
Harold
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cfl rrcom> wrote in message
news:3b2908f6@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3b28f2fe$1@news.povray.org...
> > Bill,
> > Can you help me understand what your macro would do?
>
> The idea is to get both views in one render. To do this, you have
> mirrors that cut the scene in half. I would use boxes because they render
> quickly. See PBI for cursory diagram.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:3b290e40$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Yep, should work. In the real world we have
> mirrors for 3D photography. They're often
> called "beam-splitter" attachments for regular
> 35mm cameras. The term is a misnomer because the
> beam of light is not split, the frame of film is
> split.
Exactly.
> So you'd render at double width? Something
> like 1600x600?
Something like. The problem seems to be getting the secondary mirrors to
angle correctly to "look_at" the object. Vector math... I hate it... I'm
getting nowhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems to me it would be the same as the physical
camera attachment, just four mirrors at 45 degree
angles.
| |
| |
\-\/-/
||
__
You don't need to converge on the object, if the
outer mirror separation distance is right. Almost
all stereo cameras, and most stereo photography
using two synchronized cameras, use parallel
lenses to avoid keystone distortion. Then again
I could be wrong. Keep me informed.
Harold
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b29105e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3b290e40$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Yep, should work. In the real world we have
> > mirrors for 3D photography. They're often
> > called "beam-splitter" attachments for regular
> > 35mm cameras. The term is a misnomer because the
> > beam of light is not split, the frame of film is
> > split.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > So you'd render at double width? Something
> > like 1600x600?
>
> Something like. The problem seems to be getting the secondary mirrors
to
> angle correctly to "look_at" the object. Vector math... I hate it... I'm
> getting nowhere.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill,
I just looked at your diagram and I see what you
mean. Most people who work in stereo would draw
it differently, the lines coming from the object
would be parallel. Our eyes are basically parallel
when viewing things beyond about 6 feet. What you
present in your diagram is similar to what happens
when we look at something very close, like reading
a book. Our eyes converge.
If your objective is to represent a small object
close up, convergence will still not serve you well.
The reason is that most viewing systems present the
images to our eyes in a parallel fashion. As a result
images rendered from convergent perspectives seem
distorted and difficult to view.
Harold
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b29105e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3b290e40$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Yep, should work. In the real world we have
> > mirrors for 3D photography. They're often
> > called "beam-splitter" attachments for regular
> > 35mm cameras. The term is a misnomer because the
> > beam of light is not split, the frame of film is
> > split.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > So you'd render at double width? Something
> > like 1600x600?
>
> Something like. The problem seems to be getting the secondary mirrors
to
> angle correctly to "look_at" the object. Vector math... I hate it... I'm
> getting nowhere.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote ;
>
> As a result
> images rendered from convergent perspectives seem
> distorted and difficult to view.
That's what I have been finding out. I think I need to start over...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:3b291b2f$1@news.povray.org...
> Seems to me it would be the same as the physical
> camera attachment, just four mirrors at 45 degree
> angles.
>
> | |
> | |
> \-\/-/
> ||
> __
When I do that, I get a single image in the center, which
experimentation reveals is both halves joined in the middle.
Life is hard when you don't know what you are doing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Seems to me it would be the same as the physical
> > camera attachment, just four mirrors at 45 degree
> > angles.
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > \-\/-/
> > ||
> > __
>
>
> When I do that, I get a single image in the center, which
> experimentation reveals is both halves joined in the middle.
>
> Life is hard when you don't know what you are doing.
I messed around for a while (about a week or so on and off) trying to get
this system to work, but got nowhere. As far as I can tell, the problem
is that the diagram above assumes an orthographic view. Using an ortho
camera, it might be possible to get it to work by tilting the two outer
cubes so that their reflections are focused on a point in space...
But that's just speculation, and I haven't the faintest idea of how to do
it with a perspective camera...
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, so a virtual camera is different from a real
one? or is there something were missing here?
Here's an interesting idea, put transparent color
filters in front of the front mirrors and see if
the resulting image is an anaglyph! Another possibility
is that it needs a septum to keep the images seperate.
HB
> > Seems to me it would be the same as the physical
> > camera attachment, just four mirrors at 45 degree
> > angles.
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > \-\/-/
> > ||
> > __
>
>
> When I do that, I get a single image in the center, which
> experimentation reveals is both halves joined in the middle.
>
> Life is hard when you don't know what you are doing.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote :
>
> Hmmm, so a virtual camera is different from a real
> one? or is there something were missing here?
I would bet on the second. I tried orthographic to see if that fixed it
(thinking that it needed to have a little built in distance rather than a
'point' camera)... no go...
I have a little bit of time to mess with it tonight, but I doubt that I
will figure it out...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why don't any one know this link?
http://sabix.etdv.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sabpov/
If you want to render Stereo images, let me know it.
Let me also know, if ther is anyone of the theoretical stereo
camera macros is working well.
Stefan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
