 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi. I was wondering if for the next version of MegaPOV, someone could make
the post-processed focal blur more like the real focal blur. You know, where
you can specify a point in 3D space you want it to consider the center and
then blur out from there, not from the camera. Can it be done? Is it already
possible and I have to go hide my head in the sand out of embarrassment from
not having seen it before? Thanks in advance.
--
Anthony Bennett
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just set focal_point to be whatever you want, like:
camera
{
//blah
aperture whatever
blur_samples whatever
confidence whatever
variance whatever
focal_point wherever //This is where it's focused at
}
(P.S. To people who know much more than me: is this right?)
(P.S.2: is there a mathematical relation between the aperture and the
f-stops on a camera?)
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoo com))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel, thank you for your suggestion, but I'm afraid you misunderstood. For
regular POV, there is a slow, slow version that works as you described. For
MegaPOV, this can be done after rendering, in a post processing pass, but
there is no such thing as a focal_point. It goes from the camera outwards.
I'm asking for the post processed version to have this "focal_point"
feature, like the regular POV. Understand now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep. Oooh, then I have no idea what the answer is. I'd like to know, too,
then.
BTW, does anybody know what relation (if any) there is between the apeture
setting and the actual f-stops on cameras?
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoocom))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
>Hi. I was wondering if for the next version of MegaPOV, someone could make
>the post-processed focal blur more like the real focal blur. You know, where
>you can specify a point in 3D space you want it to consider the center and
>then blur out from there, not from the camera. Can it be done? Is it already
>possible and I have to go hide my head in the sand out of embarrassment from
>not having seen it before? Thanks in advance.
I honestly do not think that is possible, as post-processing happens to the
2d bitmap, not the actual scene file.
Oldstench................
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: For
: regular POV, there is a slow, slow version that works as you described.
It's not that slow if you know how to use it. And it's a lot more accurate
than the post-process focal blur.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
post_process has access to depth information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's not that slow if you know how to use it. And it's a lot more
accurate
> than the post-process focal blur.
Alright. Tell me how to make it silky-smooth and still be not-so-slow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: Alright. Tell me how to make it silky-smooth and still be not-so-slow.
Set variance to 0 and choose a proper blur_samples.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Lin wrote:
>
> Yep. Oooh, then I have no idea what the answer is. I'd like to know, too,
> then.
>
> BTW, does anybody know what relation (if any) there is between the apeture
> setting and the actual f-stops on cameras?
Since the following macro works:
http://www.wozzeck.net/images/DoF.html
it seems that aperture has the "right" value... I mean that f-stops are
actually focal-length-divided-by... values. Eg. your nice 300mm f/2.8
has an "aperture" of 107 mm. The problem is to determine the "focal
length" of your camera, which is certainly not the one you get in 24x36
mm. See the macro page and source for more details.
--
__ __ __ __ _
| | / \ / / |_ / |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
