|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> About 'convergence' of the two camera views: [clip]... I and found that the
> best 3D effect (for me at least) was to
> have both camera views looking off into *infinity* (that is, no 'convergence' of
> the cameras onto a nearer object) and to just move one of the cameras laterally
> a couple of inches. This produced less eyestrain when viewing the 3D, and didn't
> produce any 'odd' convergence-related perspective shifts of other objects in the
> scene...
Let me try and explain that a little better: Converging the two camera views
onto a nearer object can produce unwanted parallax shift of more distant objects
(at least in a real camera lens), the result being that those further-away
objects don't 'line up' correctly (and have unequal 'lens distortion') when
viewed in 3D-- especially when using a wide-angle lens setting. It's an odd
effect to describe, but it results in eye strain.
POV-Ray's typical perspective camera is essentially a 'pinhole' camera-- not
quite the same behavior as a real lens (the lens distortions are... different)
so it might be worth experimenting with 'convergent' views vs. non-convergence
views, to see if there is any real difference. I don't know; strange as it
sounds, I've never made a 3D scene in POV-Ray (!) It's now on my to-do list....
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |