POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.scene-files : New version screen.inc : Re: New version screen.inc Server Time
14 May 2024 01:30:21 EDT (-0400)
  Re: New version screen.inc  
From: Stephen
Date: 5 Nov 2017 04:10:00
Message: <web.59fed53cb4b005965035c1510@news.povray.org>
Reposting this so I can pick it up in thunderbird.

(It came through the first time blank.)


"cbpypov" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> >
> > Oops! I forgot the beginnings of this thread.
> > That's what he said in the first post. But the third one with an
> > attachment still says:
> >
> > > // You can only use screen.inc with the perspective camera. Screen.inc
> > > // will automatically create the camera definition for you when it is
> > > // included.
> >
>
> No need to remember it: it's there, online, you can read it again ;) But I think
> you copied these lines from its screen.inc attachment. BUT, these lines are
> there because SharkD copied them from the original screen.inc and frogot to
> delete them :D Maybe it's me: but I am sure this thread would not be here if
> SharkD did not have tried to get ortho-cam to work. Moreover, his
> reimplementation of Set_Camera would not have a new `orth` parameter:
>
>     #macro Set_Camera(Location, LookAt, Angle, Ortho)
>
> Right?
>
> So, ... we are a bit at cross-purposes, i think. I attached examples of a
> minimal scene. minimal_perspective.pov uses the normal camera, and using
> screen.inc (minimal_screen.pov) gives identical results. When setting the
> ortho-cam in the traditional way, I get the expected result (minimal_ortho.pov).
> However, when using SharkD's screen.inc and setting `ortho=on`), the result is
> way different (minimal_ortho_screen.pov). I think this is not how it is supposed
> to work, i.e. minimal_ortho.png and minimal_ortho_screen.png are supposed to be
> identical, but they are not.
>
> >
> > There will be a tangent in there some way.
> >
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Derivation_of_the_angle-of-view_formula
> >
> > All those hard quantum sums, eh? ;-)
> >
>
> I see, it should be simple ;) I tried it, see minimal_ortho_fake.pov. But it is
> still wrong :/
>
> Does anyone see a fix for SharkD's approach? Or do you see where my mistake in
> the fake version is?
>
> Thanks :)


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.