 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Galaxy include, heart function, Julia fractals, text.
Simple but fun. Sabine is just a friend (so far ;-)
Harold
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sabinevalentine3D.jpg' (136 KB)
Preview of image 'sabinevalentine3D.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think everything looks great except the golden "things" that are on the
sides of the heart. I think the colors are too separated. I couldn't see
them in 3d. Perhaps the separation effect is a bit too exaggerated...
Or it may be my eyes!!!
Good work,
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas Willhalm
Subject: Re: An anglyphic stereoscopic valentine
Date: 15 Feb 2002 07:47:55
Message: <3c6d037b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think everything looks great except the golden "things" that are on the
> sides of the heart. I think the colors are too separated. I couldn't see
> them in 3d. Perhaps the separation effect is a bit too exaggerated...
The same is true for me.
Is there a include file, macro, whatever to create such stereoscopic
pictures?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, the separation does exceed the standard a little.
I used PaintShop Pro to post process the anaglyph.
There is a patched version of POV that will directly
output stereo pairs or an anaglyph.
http://sabix.etdv.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sabpov/
Harold
"Thomas Willhalm" <wil### [at] fmi uni-konstanzde> wrote in message
news:3c6d037b@news.povray.org...
>
> > I think everything looks great except the golden "things" that are on
the
> > sides of the heart. I think the colors are too separated. I couldn't see
> > them in 3d. Perhaps the separation effect is a bit too exaggerated...
>
> The same is true for me.
>
> Is there a include file, macro, whatever to create such stereoscopic
> pictures?
>
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It used to be that this required post processing. You would take the distance from
camera to primary focus and divide by twelve to
get the camera separation. Then, use a two-frame animation to render left and right
eye views and finally piece them together with
DTA, which had a specific red/blue anaglyph switch.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The "rule of thumb" in stereo photography for separation of cameras is 1 to
30.
One unit separation of camera lenses for every 30 units to the nearest
significant object.
Maybe what you describe is the same thing, but I don't know what you mean by
primary focus. The 1 to 30 guideline is based on a "normal" focal length,
ie. a
50mm lens on a 35mm camera. Some stereo photographers argue for a
"1/focal length" rule. In the valentine I almost doubled the 1 to 30 rule,
but
anaglyphs can often work with execessive depth.
An advantage of using an image manipulation utility like PaintShop Pro is
that you can trim
the image to adjust the stereo window (relative placement of the scene in
the z-space) to
keep most things behind the virtual window (computer screen).
HB
GrimDude <vos### [at] gulfnet> wrote in message news:3c6dd696@news.povray.org...
> It used to be that this required post processing. You would take the
distance from camera to primary focus and divide by twelve to
> get the camera separation. Then, use a two-frame animation to render left
and right eye views and finally piece them together with
> DTA, which had a specific red/blue anaglyph switch.
>
> Grim
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The ratio I mentioned was in reference to the distance from the camera to the center
(normalized location) of your viewed object
without modifying the Pov camera. It does require the creation of two separate images,
and then a merging of the two via
post-processing. Dave's Targa Animator used to be quite excellent for this (having a
specific switch for just that), but I believe
with the 32-bit version it has lost some functionality.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
