 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What effect does scaling a camera have on focal_blur?
I have two cameras, and they should both produce the same result. But
they don't.
// focal blur camera
camera {
location <0,0,-5>
look_at <0,0,0>
right x*image_width/image_height
up y
aperture 1.0 // [0...N] larger is narrower depth of field
(blurrier)
blur_samples 10 // number of rays per pixel for sampling
focal_point <0,0,0> // point that is in focus <X,Y,Z>
confidence 0.95 // [0...<1] when to move on while sampling
(smaller is less accurate)
variance 1/200 // [0...1] how precise to calculate (smaller
is more accurate)
scale 2
}
/*
// focal blur camera
camera {
location <0,0,-10>
look_at <0,0,0>
right x*image_width/image_height
up y
aperture 1.0 // [0...N] larger is narrower depth of field
(blurrier)
blur_samples 10 // number of rays per pixel for sampling
focal_point <0,0,0> // point that is in focus <X,Y,Z>
confidence 0.95 // [0...<1] when to move on while sampling
(smaller is less accurate)
variance 1/200 // [0...1] how precise to calculate (smaller
is more accurate)
}
*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also, what if I scale the camera before I add the focal_blur? I am
having trouble with a scene in which the center never appears in focus
like I want it to.
:(
On 2/10/2018 7:47 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> What effect does scaling a camera have on focal_blur?
>
> I have two cameras, and they should both produce the same result. But
> they don't.
>
>
>
> // focal blur camera
> camera {
> location <0,0,-5>
> look_at <0,0,0>
> right x*image_width/image_height
> up y
> aperture 1.0 // [0...N] larger is narrower depth of field
> (blurrier)
> blur_samples 10 // number of rays per pixel for sampling
> focal_point <0,0,0> // point that is in focus <X,Y,Z>
> confidence 0.95 // [0...<1] when to move on while sampling
> (smaller is less accurate)
> variance 1/200 // [0...1] how precise to calculate (smaller
> is more accurate)
> scale 2
> }
>
> /*
> // focal blur camera
> camera {
> location <0,0,-10>
> look_at <0,0,0>
> right x*image_width/image_height
> up y
> aperture 1.0 // [0...N] larger is narrower depth of field
> (blurrier)
> blur_samples 10 // number of rays per pixel for sampling
> focal_point <0,0,0> // point that is in focus <X,Y,Z>
> confidence 0.95 // [0...<1] when to move on while sampling
> (smaller is less accurate)
> variance 1/200 // [0...1] how precise to calculate (smaller
> is more accurate)
> }
> */
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been reading this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking
and have been wondering how to achieve the effect in POV-Ray. Obviously,
there is no true scale in POV-Ray, so there's no need to "fake" the
effect. But I don't know how to construct the correct camera.
Any ideas?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I still don't understand exactly what's happening, but I removed the
scaling and just increased the numbers directly, and things are working
out much better.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/10/2018 10:36 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> I've been reading this
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking
>
> and have been wondering how to achieve the effect in POV-Ray. Obviously,
> there is no true scale in POV-Ray, so there's no need to "fake" the
> effect. But I don't know how to construct the correct camera.
>
> Any ideas?
>
See:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C57e14051%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
for a technique using a not yet adopted parser change which allowed
image_maps to be used directly in density {} blocks.
Mention it because though our documentation
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:User_Defined_Pattern
doesn't yet disclose it, the new-ish 3.7.1/3.8 pigment { user_defined {
} } capability was implemented by Christoph in a way so it works for
density blocks too. Of course only the R,G,B functions do anything where
used with density {}.
This means it should be possible to implement the tilt shift technique
in the first reference by building up functions which grab the r,g,b
channels via #declare Fn... = function { pigment { image_map {...} } }
and using those functions in two density { user_defined { } } blocks in
a density_map. It's a more awkward means than using the image_maps
directly in the density blocks, but it should work.
The technique uses media blending between two densities. One blurred via
turbulence and one not.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.02.2018 um 04:36 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> I've been reading this
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking
>
> and have been wondering how to achieve the effect in POV-Ray. Obviously,
> there is no true scale in POV-Ray, so there's no need to "fake" the
> effect. But I don't know how to construct the correct camera.
>
> Any ideas?
Yep: Crank up the focal blur `aperture` setting like mad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> ..for a technique using a not yet adopted parser change which allowed
> image_maps to be used directly in density {} blocks.
>
That is *definitely* an interesting and useful idea (as is your current
workaround.) Any idea if this image_map thing is going to be included in a newer
v3.8.x alpha or beta?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2018 10:14 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.02.2018 um 04:36 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> I've been reading this
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking
>>
>> and have been wondering how to achieve the effect in POV-Ray. Obviously,
>> there is no true scale in POV-Ray, so there's no need to "fake" the
>> effect. But I don't know how to construct the correct camera.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Yep: Crank up the focal blur `aperture` setting like mad.
>
The problems I was having involved scaling/transforming the camera. Once
I stopped doing that, things started working properly. I don't really
understand why, but I will post some test scenes in the other forum.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I still don't understand exactly what's happening, but I removed the
> scaling and just increased the numbers directly, and things are working
> out much better.
I've never tried *scaling* a camera before, but it's an interesting idea.
Using your 'scale 2' camera, what it looks like is that the focal_blur's
focal_point of <0,0,0> (the focal 'plane')is actually shifting to <0,0,-5>. In
other words, it's keeping the same original 5-unit distance from the CAMERA--
not scaling to 2*5 = 10-units. That's what I see from a simple test, anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2018 10:39 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I still don't understand exactly what's happening, but I removed the
>> scaling and just increased the numbers directly, and things are working
>> out much better.
>
> I've never tried *scaling* a camera before, but it's an interesting idea.
>
> Using your 'scale 2' camera, what it looks like is that the focal_blur's
> focal_point of <0,0,0> (the focal 'plane')is actually shifting to <0,0,-5>. In
> other words, it's keeping the same original 5-unit distance from the CAMERA--
> not scaling to 2*5 = 10-units. That's what I see from a simple test, anyway.
>
>
>
>
I posted my scene in p.t.s-f. Could you take a look at that?
Thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
