 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks good, but didn't work for me.... :( using IE5.0
Mike
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:38C9252D.C14F0AC9@pacbell.net...
>
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Weber wrote:
>
> Looks good, but didn't work for me.... :( using IE5.0
It took a very long time for the applets to load using Netscape 4.72
but once they finally appeared they worked as advertized. You may
want to try again. It took maybe 3-5 min. before I was able to see
each one.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bill DeWitt
Subject: Re: 3D Panoramas and Objects ala POV-Ray
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:20:17
Message: <38c93ce1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's pretty cool, but too bad there is only one view point.
If only VRML looked so good...
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38C9252D.C14F0AC9@pacbell.net...
>
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> That's pretty cool, but too bad there is only one view point.
> If only VRML looked so good...
I was wondering what kind of resolution you would have to render at to
be able to get clean zooms on distant objects. If you zoom into these
examples to far you get a lot pixelated objects but not much definition.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh my... if we're not careful we'll get a new competion for full fledged
environments! This is great. I'm glad he explains his techniques.
Ken wrote:
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
>Mike Weber wrote:
>>
>> Looks good, but didn't work for me.... :( using IE5.0
>
>It took a very long time for the applets to load using Netscape 4.72
>but once they finally appeared they worked as advertized. You may
>want to try again. It took maybe 3-5 min. before I was able to see
>each one.
I have the same problem as Mike but It's because I don't want to download
Microsoft Virtual Machine (4.5 Meg) since I'm on a 33.6k modem. I just
_hate_ M$
Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
That's pretty spiffy, Unky Ken.
How can the program get smooth pictures of any angle from two fisheye views?
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh oh: you are on dangerous grounds - hating is not allowed :)
--
Regards,
Sander
Juha Leppälä <juh### [at] kolumbusfi> schreef in berichtnieuws
38c97376$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>. I just
> _hate_ M$
>
> Jide
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's directly dependent on how far in you want to zoom, no?
Just like with regular bitmaps.
Margus
Ken wrote:
>
> I was wondering what kind of resolution you would have to render at to
> be able to get clean zooms on distant objects. If you zoom into these
> examples to far you get a lot pixelated objects but not much definition.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> How can the program get smooth pictures of any angle from two fisheye views?
>
The views cover all areas visible from the current viewpoint. For a fixed
viewpoint, that's all the information you need.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
Oh hell, this thing crashed my machine when I tried to kill the window. This is
the last time I will enamble Java on my browser.
The images were nice though.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38C9252D.C14F0AC9@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
Personally, I like QTVR better. It does some kind of smoothing so
zooming looks better, and allows you to move around to different "nodes"
within the scene. But it doesn't seem to get used very much, and there
aren't many tools for it...
And anyway, this is Java, so it runs on nearly any machine. That is
quite a big advantage...
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Juha Leppälä" wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> >
> >
> >Mike Weber wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks good, but didn't work for me.... :( using IE5.0
> >
> >It took a very long time for the applets to load using Netscape 4.72
> >but once they finally appeared they worked as advertized. You may
> >want to try again. It took maybe 3-5 min. before I was able to see
> >each one.
>
> I have the same problem as Mike but It's because I don't want to download
> Microsoft Virtual Machine (4.5 Meg) since I'm on a 33.6k modem. I just
> _hate_ M$
>
> Jide
By any chance can you get free AOL CD's where you are? That's a quick way
over here to get MSIE 5.0 and I think it includes their VM.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Josh English, you recently wrote in povray.general:
> This is great. I'm glad he explains his techniques.
Where does he do that? I found no reference to how he sets up the
POV-Ray camera or any script examples, only the hardware and software
he used.
Did I miss something?
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>
> Hi Josh English, you recently wrote in povray.general:
>
> > This is great. I'm glad he explains his techniques.
> Where does he do that? I found no reference to how he sets up the
> POV-Ray camera or any script examples, only the hardware and software
> he used.
>
> Did I miss something?
Yep :) If you look on the train station page -
http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/hbg57.htm
Towards the bottom of the page he describes the POV-Ray fisheye camera
he used plus he also lists all of the software he used to compose the
final image and the software used to compile the applet.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > How can the program get smooth pictures of any angle from two fisheye views?
> >
>
> The views cover all areas visible from the current viewpoint. For a fixed
> viewpoint, that's all the information you need.
I imagine it could eaisly find the location in the image for a specific pixel in a
specific viewpoint, but I thought there would be a lot more artifacts than it
showed. They were only rendered at 700x700, and the view appears to be
320x240(?)... (Although there is some bad distortion if you look straight up or
down, it's probably because of the 6 degree overlap the person used. I'm just
talking about general loss of quality when distorting a bitmap.)
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, I checked and it looks like this technique will allow you to have
hotspots to go onto the next item. I prefer QTVR as well,but I haven't
gotten a hold of the Quicktime Authoring Studio so I can only make single
node scenes
Josh
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <38C9252D.C14F0AC9@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
> wrote:
>
> > Check it out - http://home4.inet.tele.dk/ibras/panorama.htm
>
> Personally, I like QTVR better. It does some kind of smoothing so
> zooming looks better, and allows you to move around to different "nodes"
> within the scene. But it doesn't seem to get used very much, and there
> aren't many tools for it...
>
> And anyway, this is Java, so it runs on nearly any machine. That is
> quite a big advantage...
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:27:34 -0800, "Jon A. Cruz"
<jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
>
>By any chance can you get free AOL CD's where you are? That's a quick way
>over here to get MSIE 5.0 and I think it includes their VM.
I had a friend screw-up another friend's machine by installing AOL's
software. He already had an internet provider (ATT WorldNet) and
already had a browser installed. After the AOL install, almost all his
settings regarding the internet were automatically changed without
asking him first. He could no longer access his email or much else. It
took me a good deal of effort to reset everything for him again.
Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
have handled an AOL install.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:12:56 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
>Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
>some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
>extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
>have handled an AOL install.
I think AOL is currently being sued for the changes their install makes
to the existing configuration, apparently without asking (or if it does
ask, it's in such a way that it's easy to miss.) I could be wrong, of
course.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:12:56 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
> >Of course the person who tried to install AOL could have always made
> >some sort of mistake, I guess. Neither one of these fellows was
> >extremely computer litterate, but I thought the first fellow could
> >have handled an AOL install.
>
> I think AOL is currently being sued for the changes their install makes
> to the existing configuration, apparently without asking (or if it does
> ask, it's in such a way that it's easy to miss.) I could be wrong, of
> course.
Actually, it does ask up front, and it seemed fairly clear to me. (I said
no when I installed it last few times). I forget the exact message, but
they do only ask once. They didn't go "are you reaaaaaaly sure you want to
do this?", "again, are you sure"...
I think it's very amusing, since if AOL didn't install the way that they
do, they'd have an even larger number of people upset with them.
Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.
There have been things in the past that they've been sued for that have
seemed to have good grounds (remember their switch to flat-rate?), but
this does not seem like one of them.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:36:44 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
>lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
>rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
>of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
>that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.
I can't comment much on this, but I'm reliably informed that the "working
with another large disabled-people's rights group" part started happening
just a couple days before the news of the NFB suit broke. I suspect they
were closing the barn door after the horse had left.
Hey, whaddayaknow, now I have to disclaim even more than usual. Any lawyers
who might be sniffing around, please check the .sig.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
I'm not speaking for my employer, either.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:36:44 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >Yes, they are being sued, but I personally feel it's a very frivolous
> >lawsuit. Even worse than them getting sued by a large disabled-people's
> >rights group for not having accessable software when they're in the middle
> >of working with another large disabled-people's rights group to address
> >that exact issue. Deep pockets are so tempting.
>
> I can't comment much on this, but I'm reliably informed that the "working
> with another large disabled-people's rights group" part started happening
> just a couple days before the news of the NFB suit broke. I suspect they
> were closing the barn door after the horse had left.
National Federation of the Blind
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111499/Perspective/Blind_group_s_suit_ag.shtml
http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_232881,00.html
(see the last few paragraphs)
I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the
other group a while before the suit broke, and had the impression that they had
been working with them since maybe last spring. Of course, I'd need to find
some PR releases or at least some organizations names to be sure.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:14:25 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
>is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
>probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the
Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:14:25 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >I can't find the name of the other organization(s) off hand, but the main point
> >is that AOL's software is a bit large and takes time to address, and this had
> >probably been in the works for a while. I had first heard things about the
>
> Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.
And you I.
If I can locate any public info, I'll be sure to follow up.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:40:40 -0800, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>> Jon, you're forgetting what I do for a living.
>
>And you I.
I thought you wrote change management software. Is that no longer the case?
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
