 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am looking for software to create stereoscopic images created in PovRay.
I have a new “dream machine” with a 3D Vision (Nvidia) screen. I am
using Anaglyph Maker and it does the job but it has flaws. It only seems
to work with BMP files and there is no batch function. Other programs I
have found only output the red/green anaglyphs.
Any recommendations?
Another thing I need is some sort of tutorial that explains the
different effects you get by changing the stereo base and the look at
point for CG rendering. The articles that I have read were for
photographic cameras not pin-hole cameras and I cannot relate near and
far depth to PovRay’s cameras.
If anyone is interested here is a left and right image of a previous
TC-TRC entry. It is not right and I don’t know what is wrong.
http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#0
http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#1
(The names have been changed and I think the first one is the Right Eye
image.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/10/2014 20:54, Stephen wrote:
> I am looking for software to create stereoscopic images created in PovRay.
> I have a new “dream machine” with a 3D Vision (Nvidia) screen. I am
> using Anaglyph Maker and it does the job but it has flaws. It only seems
> to work with BMP files and there is no batch function. Other programs I
> have found only output the red/green anaglyphs.
> Any recommendations?
>
> Another thing I need is some sort of tutorial that explains the
> different effects you get by changing the stereo base and the look at
> point for CG rendering. The articles that I have read were for
> photographic cameras not pin-hole cameras and I cannot relate near and
> far depth to PovRay’s cameras.
> If anyone is interested here is a left and right image of a previous
> TC-TRC entry. It is not right and I don’t know what is wrong.
>
> http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#0
> http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#1
>
> (The names have been changed and I think the first one is the Right Eye
> image.)
>
I have a patch for a stereoscopic camera in povray.
You have to consider a few things:
* what is the distance between the centre of each "eye" ?
* where is the focus point where both centres of picture's rays meet.
* do you want parallel or crossed visualisation
Otherwise, it's pretty like traditional pin-hole camera.
So, did you laterally translate the camera between each render ?
Did both focus on the same spot ?
The camera should move, not the scene.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/10/2014 20:37, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I have a patch for a stereoscopic camera in povray.
>
Interesting?
> You have to consider a few things:
> * what is the distance between the centre of each "eye" ?
Indeed! and what effect does increasing the distance have?* Some of my
reading suggests that for distance shots an extended baseline is
recommended.
> * where is the focus point where both centres of picture's rays meet.
Again, is there a recognised behaviour when you change that point?*
> * do you want parallel or crossed visualisation
>
I don't know. I have lcd shutter glasses I guess that parallel would be
more comfortable.
> Otherwise, it's pretty like traditional pin-hole camera.
>
The articles I've read talk about a lens's near and far points depending
on the focal length of the lens. Which in itself gives an estimate for
the angle of view.
That is not pinhole camera stuff. (I hope)
> So, did you laterally translate the camera between each render ?
> Did both focus on the same spot ?
>
> The camera should move, not the scene.
What I have done is use Pov's animation system via Bishop3D.
I set up the camera in the centre position then add and subtract a
translation leaving the look at, the same in two separate frames.
* I have run tests varying these things but have not come to any
conclusions other than it is art not science. ;-)
Possibly because my workflow is poor.
1. set up a scene in Bishop3D and render the frames.
2. Accept error message that Pov 3.7 is required.
3. Open file in Pov 3.7 and render.
4. Open left and right images in Anaglyph Maker and save stereogram.
5. Open 3D Vision player and view in 3D.
6. Try to remember why you came into the room. ;-)
I would like to know how to work out where the plane is that separates
"in front" of the screen from "behind the screen". That would be a
starting point.
BTW Thanks.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> I am looking for software to create stereoscopic images created in PovRay.
> I have a new “dream machine” with a 3D Vision (Nvidia) screen. I am
> using Anaglyph Maker and it does the job but it has flaws. It only seems
> to work with BMP files and there is no batch function. Other programs I
> have found only output the red/green anaglyphs.
> Any recommendations?
>
> Another thing I need is some sort of tutorial that explains the
> different effects you get by changing the stereo base and the look at
> point for CG rendering. The articles that I have read were for
> photographic cameras not pin-hole cameras and I cannot relate near and
> far depth to PovRay’s cameras.
> If anyone is interested here is a left and right image of a previous
> TC-TRC entry. It is not right and I don’t know what is wrong.
>
> http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#0
> http://imgur.com/a/amCXi#1
>
> (The names have been changed and I think the first one is the Right Eye
> image.)
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Try "StereoPhoto Maker", it has many types of output.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/10/2014 22:01, StephenS wrote:
> Try "StereoPhoto Maker", it has many types of output.
I had already looked at that and it's profusion of outputs and no
documentation, for the latest version, put me off.
After your post I downloaded an earlier version with a help file and
found that I can run the NVidia viewer from inside StereoPhoto Maker.
This is just what I wanted. Thanks Stephen.
Also thanks for your "parsing the camera" code. I used that along with a
modified "screen.inc" to automate setting up the stereo cameras.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.10.2014 22:16, schrieb Stephen:
> On 24/10/2014 20:37, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> I have a patch for a stereoscopic camera in povray.
>>
> Interesting?
>
>> You have to consider a few things:
>> * what is the distance between the centre of each "eye" ?
>
> Indeed! and what effect does increasing the distance have?* Some of my
> reading suggests that for distance shots an extended baseline is
> recommended.
I consider that recommendation nonsense: Yes, long-distance shots with
standard eye distance are problematic for 3D because they provide little
to no 3D effect at all.
However, increasing the eye distance has exactly one primary effect: It
makes the scene appear smaller. (Likewise, decreasing the eye distance
makes it appear larger.)
>> * where is the focus point where both centres of picture's rays meet.
>
> Again, is there a recognised behaviour when you change that point?*
My recommendation would be to put the focal point at a distance
equivalent to the expected viewing distance to the screen.
Changing that point won't mean a thing to the 3D effect, but may cause
discomfort.
There's one other very important thing to consider though: Camera angle.
For best results, the camera angle should be the same as the expected
"screen angle" in real life. Any other than that, and you'll introduce
distortions that may cause discomfort.
All in all, the camera parameters should match the expected viewing
situation as closely as possible, with the display corresponding to the
look_at plane.
Obviously, following this advice is not practical, because it severely
limits your choice of camera perspective :-P - but it should give you a
sound starting point.
>> * do you want parallel or crossed visualisation
>
> I don't know. I have lcd shutter glasses I guess that parallel would be
> more comfortable.
With LCD shutter glasses, the question is irrelevant, as it applies only
to side-by-side viewing.
> The articles I've read talk about a lens's near and far points depending
> on the focal length of the lens. Which in itself gives an estimate for
> the angle of view.
> That is not pinhole camera stuff. (I hope)
Stick to the pinhole stuff, it is actually a better fit to the viewing
situation (presuming you don't have one of those fancy new curved panels).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-10-2014 8:05, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.10.2014 22:16, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 24/10/2014 20:37, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> I have a patch for a stereoscopic camera in povray.
>>>
>> Interesting?
>>
>>> You have to consider a few things:
>>> * what is the distance between the centre of each "eye" ?
>>
>> Indeed! and what effect does increasing the distance have?* Some of my
>> reading suggests that for distance shots an extended baseline is
>> recommended.
>
> I consider that recommendation nonsense: Yes, long-distance shots with
> standard eye distance are problematic for 3D because they provide little
> to no 3D effect at all.
>
But, it is the reason why on goggles, the baseline /is/ extended.
Consider also those military stereoscopic viewers. From my own
experience with stereoscopic viewers used for aerial photographs,
extending the baseline makes objects appear like billboards.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You are quite right. It may cause discomfort. :-)
I had a bit of eye strain yesterday. So I will give it a rest today.
On 26/10/2014 07:05, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.10.2014 22:16, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 24/10/2014 20:37, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Indeed! and what effect does increasing the distance have?* Some of my
>> reading suggests that for distance shots an extended baseline is
>> recommended.
>
> I consider that recommendation nonsense: Yes, long-distance shots with
> standard eye distance are problematic for 3D because they provide little
> to no 3D effect at all.
>
> However, increasing the eye distance has exactly one primary effect: It
> makes the scene appear smaller. (Likewise, decreasing the eye distance
> makes it appear larger.)
>
>
I have two options.
Experiment with a simpler scene. Or make my mind up which scale to use.
Whether it is the internal scale of the scene or the scale of the
external viewer. (I think the answer is in the option)
>>> * where is the focus point where both centres of picture's rays meet.
>>
>> Again, is there a recognised behaviour when you change that point?*
>
> My recommendation would be to put the focal point at a distance
> equivalent to the expected viewing distance to the screen.
>
Bingo! Thanks. A flash of insight there.
> Changing that point won't mean a thing to the 3D effect, but may cause
> discomfort.
>
>
It does, on some of my tests I noticed eye strain when focusing on
different parts of the scene.
> There's one other very important thing to consider though: Camera angle.
> For best results, the camera angle should be the same as the expected
> "screen angle" in real life. Any other than that, and you'll introduce
> distortions that may cause discomfort.
>
>
> All in all, the camera parameters should match the expected viewing
> situation as closely as possible, with the display corresponding to the
> look_at plane.
>
>
I think I have it now. I have been using the wrong viewpoint.
> Obviously, following this advice is not practical, because it severely
> limits your choice of camera perspective :-P - but it should give you a
> sound starting point.
>
If only the "Mind's Eye" camera could be developed. ;-)
>
> With LCD shutter glasses, the question is irrelevant, as it applies only
> to side-by-side viewing.
>
I thought it might.
>
>> The articles I've read talk about a lens's near and far points depending
>> on the focal length of the lens. Which in itself gives an estimate for
>> the angle of view.
>> That is not pinhole camera stuff. (I hope)
>
> Stick to the pinhole stuff, it is actually a better fit to the viewing
> situation (presuming you don't have one of those fancy new curved panels).
>
I will and I don't.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/10/2014 08:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> But, it is the reason why on goggles, the baseline /is/ extended.
> Consider also those military stereoscopic viewers. From my own
> experience with stereoscopic viewers used for aerial photographs,
> extending the baseline makes objects appear like billboards.
Would that not be more of the "telescopic" effect of the lens's used?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-10-2014 9:54, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/10/2014 08:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> But, it is the reason why on goggles, the baseline /is/ extended.
>> Consider also those military stereoscopic viewers. From my own
>> experience with stereoscopic viewers used for aerial photographs,
>> extending the baseline makes objects appear like billboards.
>
> Would that not be more of the "telescopic" effect of the lens's used?
>
Hmm... I am not sure how much the lens influences the effect indeed. My
guts tell me it is the baseline mostly, but then who would rely on his
guts? :-)
Remember those stereoscopic viewers from our youth? Viewmaster
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/zkFmx_c9QM6C23Ld3Qd6sg
they also had that exaggerated 3D effect, less billboard-like maybe but
still.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
