3f073ade$1@news.povray.org...
> Hi.Family Day is fantastic and works fine on Win 98 SE (QT version). Do
you
> have time to explain with some detail how you created these, from the POV
> scene to the final viewing stage? That would be a huge help...
> Thanks very much,

Thanks!
I'm not sure if you mean the "Family" image itself or just the QTVR... I may
write a "making of" in the future, but in a nutshell it's just a bunch of
pipes created with my "MadPipe" macro with additional props (particularly
some from http://www.baument.com) and Poser characters thrown in.
If you mean how to turn the POV-Ray scene into a QTVR file, here's how to do
it:

- download Panocube http://www.panoshow.com/panocube.htm and the Panotools
suite http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch
- create a directory so that there is no space in the path name, such as
c:\panorama (but NOT c:\program files\panorama)
- unzip the Panocube file and put Ptstitcher.exe and Pano12.dll in this
directory
- drag and drop Ptstitcher.exe on Panocube.exe : this tells Panocube where
Ptstitcher is and needs to be done only once
- to create the QTVR, drag and drop the image file on Panocube.exe, and

Other conversion options (size, etc.) can be edited in the script.txt file.
There's also a commercial version of Panocube with more options.

G.

--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

3f07c079$1@news.povray.org...
> Great!  Is there a chance that you will post a even more detailed high res
> version so one can zoom in and look at all the details?

Why not? To get a panorama like this the image is already 3000*1500. I'd
need something like 12000*6000...
It's much more work though, because I'll need much higher radiosity for some
of the parts otherwise the Poser folks will just look like they have some
skin disease. I had this problem with the still version and I had to go
through the painstaking process of using masks to insert high radiosity
versions of the characters into the low rad version of the rest of the
scene. Well if I can find the time I'll have a look.

G.


--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f07e789@news.povray.org> , "Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> 
wrote:

>> Great!  Is there a chance that you will post a even more detailed high res
>> version so one can zoom in and look at all the details?
>
> Why not? To get a panorama like this the image is already 3000*1500. I'd
> need something like 12000*6000...

Oh, I see.  I thought this is a cube map and you had to render six sides...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

It's the best 360 image I've ever seen.  Most 360 images are photos and 
always have artifacts or seams, but not here.  Very impressive.

Post a reply to this message

None wrote:
> It's the best 360 image I've ever seen.  Most 360 images are photos and 
> always have artifacts or seams, but not here.  Very impressive.


being spherical, not cylindrical.  (At least, I *think* the number is
64800, calculation could be wrong)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:


> being spherical, not cylindrical.  (At least, I *think* the number is
> 64800, calculation could be wrong)



Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:

> being spherical, not cylindrical.  (At least, I *think* the number is
> 64800, calculation could be wrong)

  No. Degrees (and radians) are used only to measure 2-dimensional angles.
You can't measure spatial angles (I think that the mathematical term
is "solid angle") with degrees.

  Solid angles are measured in steradians. The solid angle subtended by
a surface is defined as the surface area of a unit sphere covered by
the surface's projection onto the sphere.
  The solid angle corresponding to all of space being subtended
is 4*pi steradians.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

>- to create the QTVR, drag and drop the image file on Panocube.exe, and

>Other conversion options (size, etc.) can be edited in the script.txt file.
>There's also a commercial version of Panocube with more options.

Hi Gilles,

Tried it but when dropping the image on the exe, it says "Not
equirectangular input" ?? (For info, my picture size is 400x400 (dividable
by 4) and the camera was spherical camera angle=360d -HORIZONTAL - what
about the vertical ?)

Thanks,

Tommy
The 1st African citizen POV member !
==================
http://www.webkenya.com/
Promote Web Development in Africa
WWW = Western or World Wide Web ??

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, Warp wrote:

>> If you want to get nitpicky, it's not a 360° image, it's a 64800° image,
>> being spherical, not cylindrical.  (At least, I *think* the number is
>> 64800, calculation could be wrong)
> 
>   No. Degrees (and radians) are used only to measure 2-dimensional angles.
> You can't measure spatial angles (I think that the mathematical term
> is "solid angle") with degrees.
> 
>   Solid angles are measured in steradians. The solid angle subtended by
> a surface is defined as the surface area of a unit sphere covered by
> the surface's projection onto the sphere.
>   The solid angle corresponding to all of space being subtended
> is 4*pi steradians.

Though astronomers and astrophotographers like to talk about "squared 
degrees"...

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> I've only tested this with IE6 under XP so if you have problems with other
> browsers and OS let me know.

Absolutly great. The Java applet works fine with Linux, KDE 3.2 and
Konqueror!

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message