Argh! You are right about the distribution of rays, of course. I don't know what
made me claim the opposite; the logic is quite clear.
Well, I still believe my descriptions of all the other cameras are correct; as
well as what concerns different types of distortion.

Margus

Rune wrote:
> 
> What I meant when I said the checker pattern wouldn't become distorted, was
> that each square of the checker pattern would be the same size and shape in
> the output image. That might have been uncorrect wording but anyway, that's
> what I meant :-)
> 
> I still insists that the rays *does* hit a plane perpendicular to the camera
> viewing direction at *constant* *intervals*, and thus, the horisontal and
> vertical angle between the camera rays *doesn't* remains constant.
> However I said that the rays would be positioned more sparsely towards the
> sides. That, of course, is wrong. The rays are positioned more sparsely
> towards the *middle*.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Rune
> 
> ---
> Updated December 10: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
> Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
> The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
> miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message