 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi again,
I showed my wife my current work with Pov and she said: "All those walls are
oblique". And she is right of course. I know, it's a matter of the
camera-angle and the perspective camera. I looked in the help-file to find
which is the default camera angle, but can't find it.
So what is the default angle and which angle will give me more "realistic"
results (I know, that it's realistic anyway, but ...)
Thanks,
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ha!
"Angel" :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> I showed my wife my current work with Pov and she said: "All those walls are
> oblique". And she is right of course. I know, it's a matter of the
> camera-angle and the perspective camera. I looked in the help-file to find
> which is the default camera angle, but can't find it.
> So what is the default angle and which angle will give me more "realistic"
> results (I know, that it's realistic anyway, but ...)
>
> Thanks,
>
When looking for 'angle' in the camera part of the documentation you find
how it's related to 'direction' which defaults to <0, 0, 1>
Linien). If you use an orthographic camera, they will not occur at all.
BTW, with a horizontal camera the walls should not be oblique anyway.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a6610a6@news.povray.org>, "Marc-Hendrik Bremer"
<Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I showed my wife my current work with Pov and she said: "All those
> walls are oblique". And she is right of course. I know, it's a matter
> of the camera-angle and the perspective camera. I looked in the
> help-file to find which is the default camera angle, but can't find
> it. So what is the default angle and which angle will give me more
> "realistic" results (I know, that it's realistic anyway, but ...)
As I recall, the default angle is about 67 degrees.
And as for what angle will give you "realistic" results, that depends on
your scene, camera position, desired field of view, and the effect you
are trying to accomplish. There isn't any such thing as a "realistic"
angle.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You often find trying to achieve non-obliqueness in a closed environment is not
always possible. To see 1/4 of a room for example you can't really get rid of
perspective. Open areas are easier to compensate for by moving the camera a
ridiculous distance away and narrowing the 'angle'.
I more often than not use angle 30 or less because that's about where spheres
in corners retain better spherical shapes, although I do use much higher for
those panoramic scenes. In fact the render I just posted at p.b.i. yesterday
uses the angle 67.
Bob H.
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-1DC231.17092817012001@news.povray.org...
> And as for what angle will give you "realistic" results, that depends on
> your scene, camera position, desired field of view, and the effect you
> are trying to accomplish. There isn't any such thing as a "realistic"
> angle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I always use "angle 35" in my camera definition. It have worked the best
so far.
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann schrieb in Nachricht <3A66176C.C9FB9E21@gmx.de>...
>When looking for 'angle' in the camera part of the documentation you find
>how it's related to 'direction' which defaults to <0, 0, 1>
>
Oh yes, I didn't get that I could have calculated the angle with that
formular.
>BTW, with a horizontal camera the walls should not be oblique anyway.
It is not totaly horizontal :-)
Thanks,
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff schrieb in Nachricht ...
>As I recall, the default angle is about 67 degrees.
Ah yes, that is probably right, at least I get approx. 1 when I feed 67 in
the formular which is given in the "angle"-chapter of the docs.
Thanks,
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob H. schrieb in Nachricht <3a66bcda@news.povray.org>...
>You often find trying to achieve non-obliqueness in a closed environment is
not
>always possible. To see 1/4 of a room for example you can't really get rid
of
>perspective. Open areas are easier to compensate for by moving the camera
a
>ridiculous distance away and narrowing the 'angle'.
Ah yes, it is an outdoor scene and I tried an angle of 40, which is way
better.
>I more often than not use angle 30 or less because that's about where
spheres
>in corners retain better spherical shapes, although I do use much higher
for
>those panoramic scenes. In fact the render I just posted at p.b.i.
yesterday
>uses the angle 67.
There are scenes where it seems not to matter. Some of the scenes I made
worked very well with the default angle 67. But when the camera is not
horizontal it seems to become important to narrow the angle a bit. OK, it
depends of course on the effect you want to achieve. But watching TV most
shots don't show any obliqueness IMO.
Thanks,
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
