|
 |
Yep, sorry, I thought so too. I hurriedly used a clumsy left/right shift
as second thought to just plain old single image. The camera is rotated
off axis some and instead of shifting the rotation I translated in 2
axes (x,z) by what probably is too large a shift anyhow since I guessed
it.
I did try keeping the images narrowed in width. Basically the eye
separation just can't be compromised or you get cock-eyed too much.
Suppose cross-eyed would be easier but I've never done those since it
seems to go against logic looking at opposite sides.
I'll probably go ahead and reduce this one and add it onto my web page.
Simon de Vet wrote:
>
> However, I suggest making the image smaller, or having the two halves closer
> together. This requires sooooo much eye crossing, it gives me a headache. Even
> a reduction to 70-80% of the size would make a world of difference....
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
