Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Awesome! Let us know when you figure out why the fudge factor is needed.
> If you flip over the disc you'll see that the second fudge factor is too
> small. You need to set it to + 1.65 instead of + 1.44.
>
>
Thanks. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all! And in some of the tests I ran by
rotating the object, the L_1/L_2 equation-- the min_extent and max_extent --
actually exceeded 1.0. Meaning, the far bounding_box corner was being sensed as
closer to the camera than the near one(!) That made no sense, but it's
*probably* precision-errors, due to some of the values becoming really small
(when the camera/object distance is large.)

Currently, I can live with the fudge factors-- they're at least somewhat easy to
fiddle with, until I figure out what's happening-- but they make no sense. And
neither did any of the other fudgy things I tried. That kind of arbitrary stuff
really bugs me.

I'll hopefully awake one morning with an 'A-HA' epiphany, and it will all be
clear. But don't hold your breath :-P

I have a sneaking feeling that, with a *complex* object made of lots of parts,
its  bounding_box corner locations may throw off the 'centerline' location of
the color_map. Requiring more fudge factors, maybe... :-O

Post a reply to this message