 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just crammed a stereogram out of an unfinished scene of mine.
Just wondering; shy can't I use 'actual' eye distance? I tried 7 cm
between the cameras, but that produced far too different images. This
one uses 1 cm and the camera is ca. 50 cm away from.
sig.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dart2.jpg' (53 KB)
Preview of image 'dart2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just wondering; shy can't I use 'actual' eye distance? I tried 7 cm
eh _why_ of course
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sigmund,
The camera separation depends on the focal length of the lens. The default
for POV is the equivalent of a 50mm lens, I think. With a "normal" lens of
35mm to 50mm the camera separation should be about 1 unit for every 30 units
between the camera and the closest object. In this case it would be the
edge of the target. Since the target is at an angle to the camera it is not
so simple, but you can approximate without doing the math. Where is the
target
located relative to the camera? If the target is at 0,0,0 and the camera is
at x*-50 then the rule of thumb would give a camera separation of 1.6667
units (cm).
Since the target is angled toward the camera, a separation of 1 should do
fine.
ps. Is the target person anyone we know?
Harolddd
Sigmund Kyrre Aas <as### [at] stud ntnuno> wrote in message
news:387E0D16.FE6D484F@stud.ntnu.no...
> I just crammed a stereogram out of an unfinished scene of mine.
>
> Just wondering; shy can't I use 'actual' eye distance? I tried 7 cm
> between the cameras, but that produced far too different images. This
> one uses 1 cm and the camera is ca. 50 cm away from.
>
> sig.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> at x*-50 then the rule of thumb would give a camera separation of 1.6667
Sorry, I meant z*-50.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sigmund,
Alright, I realize my last message didn't really answer the question- why.
Well, when we look at things in the distance (infinity) the line of
sight of each eye is parallel. It is still pretty much parallel at
195cm. Given an average human eye separation of 6.5cm that works out
to be 1:30. When we look at things closer than this our eyes converge
(cross). So if the cameras are still parallel they will not provide
the same image as our eyes would when we look at things closer than
195cm. To recreate the effect of looking at a close object you would
need to angle the cameras toward the center. I don't know the formulae
to calculate that, so I just use the 30:1 rule. You should also be
aware that the separation used in creating the images directly
effects how large the object seems to be. Hence, if you use the 30:1
rule to make a stereo image of an insect, and the insect fills the
image area, it will appear to be a very large bug!
Harolddd
Sigmund Kyrre Aas <as### [at] studntnuno> wrote in message
news:387E0D16.FE6D484F@stud.ntnu.no...
> I just crammed a stereogram out of an unfinished scene of mine.
>
> Just wondering; shy can't I use 'actual' eye distance? I tried 7 cm
> between the cameras, but that produced far too different images. This
> one uses 1 cm and the camera is ca. 50 cm away from.
>
> sig.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>ps. Is the target person anyone we know?
William Henry Gates III, New Mexico, 1977... busted! (If I'm not mistaken.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Harold Baize wrote:
>
> > at x*-50 then the rule of thumb would give a camera separation of 1.6667
>
> Sorry, I meant z*-50.
Don't be. The camera separation would be the same :) Here's my cam:
camera {
#local L=28;
#local Pos=<-45 , 12 ,-30>*.7;
location Pos + vnormalize(vcross(Pos,y))*clock
look_at <0, 0 , -2>
angle degrees(atan2(35,L))
}
The target is at <0,0,0> and it's normal is -x. On closer inspection,
the camera distance is 39 units and the target radius is 15, so the "one
unit for every 30 units" rule is actually fulfilled.
Can this rule be derived from the focal length of the human eye or
something?
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Correct! Now can you do the tail people as well?
sig.
TonyB wrote:
>
> >ps. Is the target person anyone we know?
>
> William Henry Gates III, New Mexico, 1977... busted! (If I'm not mistaken.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I thought it was he, but he is so young there.
TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:387e5611@news.povray.org...
> >ps. Is the target person anyone we know?
>
>
> William Henry Gates III, New Mexico, 1977... busted! (If I'm not
mistaken.)
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Harold Baize wrote:
>
> Sigmund,
> Alright, I realize my last message didn't really answer the question- why.
> Well, when we look at things in the distance (infinity) the line of
> sight of each eye is parallel. It is still pretty much parallel at
> 195cm. Given an average human eye separation of 6.5cm that works out
> to be 1:30. When we look at things closer than this our eyes converge
ahhh ooohh It's coming to me .. gotta.. _think_... Nah. G'night everone!
sig., still cuious about that ratio..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
