 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 02:42 AM, Chambers wrote:
> By capturing more information from the scene, pictures taken with a Lytro camera
> allow you to adjust the focus after the picture has been taken.
I heard about that technology years ago. (It may even have been on
Tomorrow's World.) Not particularly interesting to me, because I usually
just want *everything* to be in focus - which it usually is.
I'll get excited when they release a holographic camera. (Which, I would
like to point out, is *totally* plausible.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 05:09, schrieb Chambers:
> It all depends... if the demo on the story was indeed a live version of the
> viewer, then I would imagine a standalone version would be available when the
> camera ships.
>
> Of course, something tells me they faked it for the story. I didn't bother
> examining it too closely.
There is indeed no fluent transition from foreground to background;
looks like a set of precomputed images to me, with clickable regions
bringing up the best fit of the set.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 03:42, schrieb Chambers:
> Forget focal blur. I'd like POV to output files in this thing's format.
Note that the render time would probably be the same as running a focal
blur render multiple times with different focal points (presuming you
save photons and radiosity data for re-use).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/22/2011 11:45 PM, Warp wrote:
> Kevin Wampler<wam### [at] u washingtonedu> wrote:
>> Also, it shouldn't be too hard at all to get povray to output into a
>> format you can do this with
>
> Just output the depth and surface normal information for each pixel
> (besides the regular pixel color information, in HDRI resolution for
> extra oomph, of course) and you can do a lot of postprocessing with it.
>
> (In fact, if this information would be output for each recursion level
> instead of just the first one, the possibilities would increas, as it
> would allow more accurate post-processed focal blurring of reflections,
> refractions, etc.)
>
This would of course work as a quick hack in some cases, but I'd imagine
it'd have difficulty near death discontinuities, particularly for scenes
like looking through nearby grass at a distant background where depth
discontinuities are everywhere. I'm sure it's solvable in a
good-enough-for-most-scenes sense though.
In any case, I suspect that the camera itself works through an entirely
different technique called light field photography (or plenoptic
photography). Instead of me describing it you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenoptic_camera This sort of thing should
be downright trivial to do in povray, although render times would be high.
As a side note, I have occasionally though it would be really useful to
get a really rich image representation such as you describe form povray.
Particularly since it seems like you should be able to do thing like
change some of the material parameters of objects and some things about
lighting and see results in real time if you had a good image
description like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Kevin Wampler:
> In any case, I suspect that the camera itself works through an entirely
> different technique called light field photography (or plenoptic
> photography). Instead of me describing it you can read about it here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenoptic_camera This sort of thing should
> be downright trivial to do in povray, although render times would be high.
According to the thesis by the company's CEO, that's exactly what they do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 23/06/2011 02:42 AM, Chambers wrote:
>
>> By capturing more information from the scene, pictures taken with a
>> Lytro camera
>> allow you to adjust the focus after the picture has been taken.
>
> I heard about that technology years ago. (It may even have been on
> Tomorrow's World.) Not particularly interesting to me, because I usually
> just want *everything* to be in focus - which it usually is.
>
> I'll get excited when they release a holographic camera. (Which, I would
> like to point out, is *totally* plausible.)
yes, holography is exactly what I thought of (the "light from all
directions" concept).
Of course, holography and this focal-changing one demands a proper
viewer too, possibly even more expensive, limited and cumbersome than
the simple 2-frames stereographic ones they're trying and failing so
hard to sell today.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'll get excited when they release a holographic camera. (Which, I
>> would like to point out, is *totally* plausible.)
>
> yes, holography is exactly what I thought of (the "light from all
> directions" concept).
>
> Of course, holography and this focal-changing one demands a proper
> viewer too, possibly even more expensive, limited and cumbersome than
> the simple 2-frames stereographic ones they're trying and failing so
> hard to sell today.
I was surprised to discover that making a hologram is actually way, way
easier than you might imagine.
You can make a hologram using ordinary photographic paper. To make a
hologram rather than a normal photograph, you just need to do two
special things:
1. Illuminate the subject with laser light.
2. Let the light reflected by the subject fall directly on the
photographic paper. (I.e., do *not* use lenses to focus it into an image.)
When you develop the paper, if it has sufficiently fine grain to it, you
will get a hologram. Ta-da!
So, to make a holographic camera, "all" you need to do is make a light
sensor with very, very high spatial resolution. And similarly, a
holographic display "just" needs to have very high spatial resolution.
You don't need glasses or anything, it works like a normal hologram would.
(And yes, you can use a computer to render the hologram. It will take a
stupidly long time though, I should imagine...)
I actually find myself wondering whether a LightScribe(tm) system would
have sufficient resolution to print a hologram. It's plausible...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2011 8:08, Invisible wrote:
> I was surprised to discover that making a hologram is actually way, way
> easier than you might imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUy8lELWhJg
Search for "Scratch hologram". You can do it with a nail and a piece of plastic.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/06/2011 06:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 8:08, Invisible wrote:
>> I was surprised to discover that making a hologram is actually way, way
>> easier than you might imagine.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUy8lELWhJg
>
> Search for "Scratch hologram". You can do it with a nail and a piece of
> plastic.
Heh. That's trippy.
...although not particularly high in detail content, and I'm guessing it
takes a hell of a long time to do these.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2011 11:17, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...although not particularly high in detail content, and I'm guessing it
> takes a hell of a long time to do these.
Depends what you consider a long time. Probbly an hour or so, once you have
it planned out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
