 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wavy.mpg' (298 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <van### [at] erols com> wrote in message
news:3B1BA972.32CACD84@erols.com...
> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B1BA972.32CACD84@erols.com>, John VanSickle says...
> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
>
I hope Joe doesn't get tired easily :)
What is 'camera normal perturbation' ? I see the horizon wobbling.
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Roberto Ferrer de Amorim
Subject: Re: Test of two techniques (298kbbu)
Date: 4 Jun 2001 14:34:24
Message: <3b1bd4b0@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It was a very creative way of bashing MS. Really clever.
And that robot must know, since he looks like a medical robot, and he must
service Windows-powered robots all the time... :-)
Wolfox
> Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
> What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
the camera lens, so to speak.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:42:30 -0400, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
wrote:
>> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
>
> Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Do you actually play every animation frame-by-frame to check for MS
bashing?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B1C6501.922C50AE@pacbell.net>, Ken says...
>
>
> Sander wrote:
>
> > What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
>
> It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
> of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
> the camera lens, so to speak.
>
>
Doesn't that result in just only unsharp images? Imagine using a less
than perfect lens to take a picture??
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can't say I love the way he moves, but I like it as a whole. The text is
funny. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Normals in the camera statement can create anything from lenses that look
like they are cracked (crackle), to "3D" camera filter-effects that seem to
extrude the image in front of the camera. I've spent much of the last few
months working with this technique, and the possibilities are endless.
D.
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
> In article <3B1C6501.922C50AE@pacbell.net>, Ken says...
> >
> >
> > Sander wrote:
> >
> > > What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
> >
> > It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
> > of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
> > the camera lens, so to speak.
> >
> >
> Doesn't that result in just only unsharp images? Imagine using a less
> than perfect lens to take a picture??
> --
> Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dennis Milller wrote:
>
> Normals in the camera statement can create anything from lenses that look
> like they are cracked (crackle), to "3D" camera filter-effects that seem to
> extrude the image in front of the camera. I've spent much of the last few
> months working with this technique, and the possibilities are endless.
I like putting groups of various colored objects in front of the camera
and playing with camera normals. It can provide endless facination for
someone bored out of their mind :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
