|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.11.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> If I comment out the focal blur stuff, the text returns. I also tried
> lowering the aperture size, but it does not help.
My guess would be that the text is far too close to the camera, and
therefore hopelessly out of focus.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/9/2016 12:41 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.11.2016 um 05:28 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Camera#Focal_Blur
>>
>> The docs say, "The center of the zone of sharpness is specified by the
>> focal_point vector. The zone of sharpness is a plane through the
>> focal_point and is parallel to the camera. Objects close to this plane
>> of focus are in focus and those farther from that plane are more
>> blurred. The default value is focal_point<0,0,0>."
>>
>> How can a plane be parallel to the camera? Can't a plane only be
>> perpendicular to a vector?
>
> Interpret it as "parallel to the image plane" -- or, in other words,
> "perpendicular to the camera axis".
>
>> Also, I don't understand why a plane is used at all. All points
>> equidistant from focal_point should form a sphere, don't they?
>
> Uh, yes, technically, all points equidistant from _any_ given point form
> a sphere, but how would a sphere centered around focal_point (= an
> arbitrary point by which the location of the zone of sharpness is
> defined) be of any relevance?
>
> Presuming that you mean "all points equidistant from the camera
> location", the answer is: Yes, that would also be a sphere -- but the
> zone of sharpness in a normal camera is _not_ the set of points
> equidistant to the camera lens; rather, in a real-life camera it is the
> set of points equidistant to the image plane, and that's also the case
> for POV-Ray's camera.
>
Okay, thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/9/2016 12:43 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.11.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> If I comment out the focal blur stuff, the text returns. I also tried
>> lowering the aperture size, but it does not help.
>
> My guess would be that the text is far too close to the camera, and
> therefore hopelessly out of focus.
>
You are correct.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/9/2016 12:28 AM, omniverse wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Camera#Focal_Blur
>>
>> How can a plane be parallel to the camera? Can't a plane only be
>> perpendicular to a vector?
>>
>> Also, I don't understand why a plane is used at all. All points
>> equidistant from focal_point should form a sphere, don't they?
>
> Probably parallel in the view sense, every plane forward of the camera view
> would be considered parallel.
> Someone else would need to answer that second part, but I think the way it works
> is to simply use a flat plane like orthographic projection does. Maybe... maybe
> not.
>
> I looked at your SDL and the new screen.inc (I renamed mine here screen2.inc to
> not mix it up with the old one).
>
> Found that by using aperture 0.01 to focus the blurring while testing, and using
> the camera location instead of <0,0,0> I could get a look at the text again by
> adding a little z to it.
> Of course, it blurs away immediately after clock increases away from 0.
>
> focal_point CameraLocation+z*0.4
>
> If 0.3 or 0.5 is used the text blurs out, so obviously there's a very narrow
> focus area.
> I don't know if you will be able to discover a method to keep the text at the
> focal plane but seems like it shouldn't be impossible either.
>
> Bob
>
>
Eventually I got the text to show up, but as you said it doesn't stay in
focus as the clock increases. I gave up and added the text using
ImageMagick instead.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can I simulate an f-number of the camera by using the focal length and
aperture in a calculation? Is the aperture supposed to be a physical
measurement? Thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/10/2016 8:06 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Can I simulate an f-number of the camera by using the focal length and
> aperture in a calculation? Is the aperture supposed to be a physical
> measurement? Thanks.
>
>
> Mike
For instance, I have the following numbers:
#local CameraDistance = 16;
#local CameraAperture = clock * 4;
#local CameraFStop = CameraDistance/CameraAperture;
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.11.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> Can I simulate an f-number of the camera by using the focal length and
> aperture in a calculation? Is the aperture supposed to be a physical
> measurement? Thanks.
The `aperture` setting is the (virtual) size of the diaphragm opening in
POV-Ray units, though I keep forgetting whether it is the diameter or
the radius.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/10/2016 11:50 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.11.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> Can I simulate an f-number of the camera by using the focal length and
>> aperture in a calculation? Is the aperture supposed to be a physical
>> measurement? Thanks.
>
> The `aperture` setting is the (virtual) size of the diaphragm opening in
> POV-Ray units, though I keep forgetting whether it is the diameter or
> the radius.
>
Thank you. Could you check whether it is the diameter or radius in the
code? It is commonly supposed to be diameter according to Wikipedia.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016-11-10 12:50 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> The `aperture` setting is the (virtual) size of the diaphragm opening in
> POV-Ray units, though I keep forgetting whether it is the diameter or
> the radius.
In my experience, it's neither. Comparing aperture to a jittered
camera, it seems that dividing the aperture by about 2.7 or so yields
the diameter. (Or is it multiplying by 2.7...?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.11.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 11/10/2016 11:50 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 10.11.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>>> Can I simulate an f-number of the camera by using the focal length and
>>> aperture in a calculation? Is the aperture supposed to be a physical
>>> measurement? Thanks.
>>
>> The `aperture` setting is the (virtual) size of the diaphragm opening in
>> POV-Ray units, though I keep forgetting whether it is the diameter or
>> the radius.
>>
>
> Thank you. Could you check whether it is the diameter or radius in the
> code? It is commonly supposed to be diameter according to Wikipedia.
There's a line
r = camera.Aperture * 0.5
in the source code, indicating that the `aperture` parameter is intended
to specify the diameter.
But maybe someone can check Cousin Ricky's claim that the size is off by
a factor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |