 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Do you mean like this?
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C3e2410ea@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=189070&toff=1000
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote in
message news:41923656@news.povray.org...
> Oh, and I want horizontal lines to stay horizontal, not bent up and down
> like the cylindrical camera does.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
> "Tim Nikias v2.0"
> Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> Oh, and I want horizontal lines to stay horizontal, not bent up and
> down like the cylindrical camera does.
Distortion is dependent on angle, not aspect ratio. Saying that the image
will be probably 2:1 doesn't tell us anything in this regard.
For shallow angles you won't have a problem at all. For wide angles (both
horizontal and vertical) I think that you can't *both* avoid perspective
distortion (which makes circles elliptical near the edges) *and* have
horizontal lines stay horizontal. You may be able to find some kind of
compromise though.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do you mean like this?
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C3e2410ea@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=189070&toff=1000
Yup, I think that's it. I'll test and see if it's of use in this
non-architectural scene. :-)
Thanks!
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Distortion is dependent on angle, not aspect ratio. Saying that the image
> will be probably 2:1 doesn't tell us anything in this regard.
I think the main problem is the type of projection, not the angle itself.
What POV-Ray does is place a rectangle in front of the camera and shoot the
rays through that, and thus we get the distortion. I'm no expert on this,
and have spent only little thought on it, but if the area where the rays are
shot were concave instead of flat, and every point's normal would point
towards the camera, I think that the horizontal lines should stay
horizontal, and the vertical lines vertical, with no distortion whatsoever.
Unless the camera isn't aligned properly, that is...
If I'm mistaken, I hope someone will jump in and explain where and why...
:-)
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you would fail to find camera type you want, try:
> http://megapov.inetart.net/manual-1.1/camera.html#user_defined_camera
Thanks for the note, but I'm actually a pure purist when it comes to making
my images, I like to rely on the official version. Mainly because every so
often, features of MegaPOV don't make it into the next release, or are very
different. And I'd rather have one or two older versions of the official
POV-Ray for all my images, than several official and unofficial compiles...
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I suppose you could render the whole image using a standard camera at
640x480, then select the area you want on the render window, and render it
at a higher res.
Maybe that's not what you are after, but it might help until you get a
better soloution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, that might also be a possibility. Would still result in one huge
picture if I want to render it at something like 100dpi for a larger print,
hence I wanted to use a specialized camera. It would also take care that the
resulting image would always be easily reproducable exactly without the need
to measure pixels...
Thanks though, I'll keep that in mind when the camera doesn't do as I would
like it to. :-)
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> It would also take care that the
> resulting image would always be easily reproducable exactly without the need
> to measure pixels...
>
>
Or to avoid measuring pixels
3.1.2.2.2 Partial Output Options
....
Start_Row=0.n Set first row to n percent of height
+SR0.n or +S0.n Same as Start_Row=0.n
End_Row=0.n Set last row to n percent of height
+ER0.n or +E0.n Same as End_Row=0.n
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> but if the area where the rays are
> shot were concave instead of flat, and every point's normal would point
> towards the camera, I think that the horizontal lines should stay
> horizontal, and the vertical lines vertical, with no distortion whatsoever.
A concave surface will result in curved horizontals. The distortion would be
minimal as far as perspective goes, but the only way it would lok vorrect
would be if the display survace were equally curved.
When thinking about this, I like to imagine that you are looking THROUGH the
final image. if the final image is based on a curved survace, the only way
to see the undistorted image again would be through a curved image.
Transparent graph paper helps, too.
What I *think* you want is the two-point perspective control I was asking
about earlier. 3D is *about* distortion... without it, the images would not
look real at all. The idea is to create a point at wich the viewer can look
at the image and the distortion of the image is the _same_ as the
distortion of the real world on thier eye, thus looking like a window into
another world, rather than just a distorted picture.
Look into two-point perspective. If you figure out how to control it in
POV-Ray, you can just put the second point further away. This will reduce
distortion. The only issue with the technique is that it also reduces depth
(i.e. the squares of a checkered plane will start more squished on the
depth axis).
Hope this helps (some),
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What I *think* you want is the two-point perspective control I was asking
> about earlier.
Thanks, I'll look up on it and try to find out if its what I need. But,
knowing myself, I'll probably resort to using neither the macro linked to in
a different reply, nor the two-point perspective control, but instead use
some weirdo combination of angles, aspect-ratios and camera type to get
something that I find visually pleasing... :-)
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
