 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >Also, for those people without home planetarium: How do
> >you actually go about creating scenes which look good on
> >a dome when you only see a distorted fisheye view in 2D?
>
> A very good point.
Maybe some smart POV-Ray script that takes the fisheye shots as input, and shows
you an excerpt of it in a more 2D-display compatible projection?
After all, when sitting in a planetarium you never actually see all of the dome
at once either - you can only concentrate on portions of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also, for those people without home planetarium: How do
> you actually go about creating scenes which look good on
> a dome when you only see a distorted fisheye view in 2D?
With the perspective cam, have a look, jeeze
and the final with fisheye.
I may have missed it but, what of the file format/compression?
30fps*120 = 3600frames 3600x3600 hmm, big file.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:35:50 EST, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> >Also, for those people without home planetarium: How do
>> >you actually go about creating scenes which look good on
>> >a dome when you only see a distorted fisheye view in 2D?
>>
>> A very good point.
>
>Maybe some smart POV-Ray script that takes the fisheye shots as input, and shows
>you an excerpt of it in a more 2D-display compatible projection?
>
>After all, when sitting in a planetarium you never actually see all of the dome
>at once either - you can only concentrate on portions of it.
>
>
Like, one that replaces the fisheye camera with a perspective one (in an
animation)? ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I may have missed it but, what of the file format/compression?
> 30fps*120 = 3600frames 3600x3600 hmm, big file.
Standard fare for good digital planetariums is to supply the frames as lossless
.... so png is usual, tga for the sites with older software. But the
contributors don't need to worry about that, rendering and subsequent file
transfer. I'll render everything locally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwa eduau> wrote:
> > I may have missed it but, what of the file format/compression?
> > 30fps*120 = 3600frames 3600x3600 hmm, big file.
>
> Standard fare for good digital planetariums is to supply the frames as lossless
> .... so png is usual, tga for the sites with older software. But the
> contributors don't need to worry about that, rendering and subsequent file
> transfer. I'll render everything locally.
What software would be ok? POV-Ray 3.6, I guess; 3.7.0.beta.29 probably not :)
How about MegaPOV 1.2.1?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwaeduau> wrote:
> A proposal to the PovRay community .... how much interest is there in the
> production of a PovRay based fulldome showreel?
This sounds like great fun. Keep us posted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwaeduau> wrote:
> A proposal to the PovRay community .... how much interest is there in the
> production of a PovRay based fulldome showreel?
..
..
..
> - We would need a theme, my choice would be to make it broad enough to support
> enough variation of content ideas.
> - There needs to be a consistent transition between contributions, I'm
> imagining providing a (simple) scene that contributers need to transition
> to/from at either end of the contribution.
The theme transitions can be carried by an object or series of objects that are
present in different sequences. For example, one scene could be child's room
filled with space posters and close with a half-finished Lego model of a space
craft, followed by a scene from the future with a very similarly built,
full-sized craft (presumably designed by the now grown up child from the
previous scene) shot from a similar angle.
There is also the possibility of making collaborative story boards of the
opening and closing shot of a scene, distributing the source(s) of a single
object that must be present in the scene some way, and giving the users
complete freedom within such constraints.
I am curious, though, as how working with such a media would be. A simple
animation of a walking figure going around the edge of the dome is far more
interesting than that same figure walking across a flat frame.
Just some thoughts.
-Reactor
P.S. Unless you have a render farm or access to such a thing, I would recommend
distributed rendering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's a spaceship flyby sequence I've been wanting to do for a while
that would be great for this. :-)
Questions:
What time frame are you thinking of? I expect it to be a month or two
before I even have time to start working on this :-( and it would
probably take at least a couple months after that to actually execute
what I'm envisioning.
What is the sound system on these things like? I assume it's not normal
stereo. :-P How hard would it be for us to produce our own soundtracks?
Licensing: Some of the sounds I was wanting to use are Creative Commons
licensed. Is that a potential problem?
--
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, frequently mis-attributed to Voltaire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> Licensing: Some of the sounds I was wanting to use are Creative Commons
> licensed. Is that a potential problem?
Depends on the exact type of CC license used... there is quite a variety,
ranging from simple "Attribution" (no problem) to "No Derivative Works" (big
problem).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Depends on the exact type of CC license used... there is quite a variety,
> ranging from simple "Attribution" (no problem) to "No Derivative Works" (big
> problem).
Is share-and-share-alike a problem? I have no problem licensing my own
work under CC to meet the requirement, but I don't know if you want to
redistribute this in a way that could make other people's movies fall
under the license as well.
I'm guessing that no-commercial is probably a no-go.
--
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, frequently mis-attributed to Voltaire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
