"yooper" <Out### [at] huntelnet> wrote in message
news:3a9954cf@news.povray.org...
>
>   I have done 3D photograpy for 30 years and with the camera

That's a long time :-)  I've only been doing 3D photos for about a half
dozen years.
Some pictures of bridges and dams had a separation of around 1 yard or 1
meter with the bridge/dam center points being something like 1/4 mile away
or more.  That would be about the 1:300 ratio (well a little more) which
makes the whole scene appear to fit within a football-sized area.  Otherwise
there wouldn't be enough 3D effect to do any good.

> (Although that would be useful if we are rotating the camera around the
> object by degrees - simple trig function, eh?)
>   If the object is 10 foot away and we use 3 inches for eye separation, we
> will want to shift our camera 3in/120in or 0.025 units for every unit of
> distance to the object. For 30 foot . . . 3/360 or 0.00833 units of shift
> per unit of distance.  Of course you can deviate from this formula to
enhance
> the effect but . . . at some point it will no longer appear realistic.

I've tried both parallel and convergence and I'm not sure which is better,
but I think there's usually an artificial look to the parallel way.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message