Is there a way to render stereo versions of an image in one pass? Other
than setting up some mirrors?

    I want to do an animation in stereo and I don't want to paste together
all those images...

Post a reply to this message

Bill,
I don't think there is a way. I render them seperately then use
a program called DepthCharge Developer Studio to batch process
the files. DepthCharge Developer Studio will output the stereo
views in anaglyph, interlaced, or side-by-side formats. I
process the separate files into interlaced stereo images then
convert to an AVI animation file, finally output the files as
digital video into my Digital-8 camcorder. It would be great
if some tallented programmer wrote a front-end to POV-ray to
do single pass stereo rendering! I hope it is a feature in
POV-Ray 4.0. I also use Hash Animation:Master to render animations
directly to stereoscopic video files.

Harolddd


"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b28e996$1@news.povray.org...
>
>     Is there a way to render stereo versions of an image in one pass?
Other
> than setting up some mirrors?
>
>     I want to do an animation in stereo and I don't want to paste together
> all those images...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote :
>
> Bill,
> I don't think there is a way.

    I was pretty sure but thought I should ask before building a stereo
camera macro... all that vector math that I don't really understand...
<shudder>

    Actually it should be pretty easy, just three boxes that are in the
right place and stay there when the camera move...

Post a reply to this message

Bill,
Can you help me understand what your macro would do?
The camera only needs to shift a little on the x
dimension between renders. Dosen't really need a lot
of math unless you're moving the camera in toward
objects, in which case you would need to change the
spacing between cameras to bring them closer together
as you get close to objects.

Clue me in. Thanks,
Harolddd

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3b28ef7b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote :
> >
> > Bill,
> > I don't think there is a way.
>
>     I was pretty sure but thought I should ask before building a stereo
> camera macro... all that vector math that I don't really understand...
> <shudder>
>
>     Actually it should be pretty easy, just three boxes that are in the
> right place and stay there when the camera move...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"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

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] cflrrcom> 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