|
|
>>
>> If the software is given invalid input, it is the user that is confused.
>
>
> Very well said. In future versions the software will attempt to warn
> the user that he/she is confused.
>
> Thorsten
Well, I'm still confused, after reading the section about the sky-Vector.
I introduced a few lines in my camera-statement, but still, the black
borders appear:
up <0,0,490> // this changed, to get the right view, before the camera
// is rotated due to look_at
direction <0,-1,0> // to get the right direction first
sky <0,0,1> // this should be "up" in my case...
So I still don't get any solution without adding a tiny delta to the
cameras location or look_at...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
KalleK wrote:
> Well, I'm still confused, after reading the section about the sky-Vector.
> I introduced a few lines in my camera-statement, but still, the black
> borders appear:
>
> up <0,0,490> // this changed, to get the right view, before the camera
> // is rotated due to look_at
> direction <0,-1,0> // to get the right direction first
> sky <0,0,1> // this should be "up" in my case...
>
> So I still don't get any solution without adding a tiny delta to the
> cameras location or look_at...
If you the look_at and location as in you original post and the sky you
provide here, note that your "up" vector will face down. Using up together
with look_at, again as documented, POV-Ray only considers the *length* of
the up and right vector (similar for direction of look_at is used). So, a
negative direction vector still has a length of one, and does not change the
look_at direction sign as you seem to want it to. Depending on what you
want to do, swapping your look_at and location vectors will be sufficient
(that certainly turns the camera around).
I would strongly recommend you carefully read the camera tutorial in the
documentation if you still have problems. It is well written, and if you
start from the beginning (rather than in the middle), you will learn
everything you need to know about handling the camera.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|