> But look at the plants_demo of Gilles Tran
> (http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=38). Included in the zip is a
> file "plants_demo_pano.pov", which should be very easy to adapt to stereo.

Thanks, really nice.
I render it (12288 x 8192 SBS) and tested with Oculus Rift.
Don't look well: camera location it's too close.
I will try different IPD and/or different camera location.
Thanks for suggestion.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

>    Well, it's just a random output from Project Tierra, but I could dig
> it up if you want the sources.... maybe I still have them.
>
> --
> jaime



Of course yes - I want them!

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

> 2- Use this camera in your scene:
> (sorry, actually doesn't support vector3 direction)
>
> #declare ipd = 0.065; // Interpupillary distance
> #declare cameraLocationX = 0;
> #declare cameraLocationY = 0;
> #declare cameraLocationZ = 0;
> camera {
>        user_defined
>        location {
>          function { cameraLocationX + cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi -
> pi)*ipd/2*select(x,-1,1) }
>          function { cameraLocationY }
>          function { cameraLocationZ + sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi -
> pi)*ipd/2*select(x,-1,1) }
>        }
>        direction {
>          function { sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * cos(pi / 2 -
> (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>          function { sin(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>          function { cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * cos(pi / 2 -
> (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>        }
>      }

   Hmmm... I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but even with a simple 
test scene all I get is a black image. I'm using the latest alpha, and 
it doesn't gives any error, but the ray count on the output is zero. Any 
ideas?

--
#version 3.7;

global_settings{
   assumed_gamma 1.0
}

plane{y,-10
   pigment{rgb 1}
}

sphere{0,10
   pigment{rgb <1,0,0>}
   translate <0,0,50>
}

light_source{
   100*y,10
}

/*
camera{
   location <0,0,-1>
   direction 1*z
}
*/

// ODS camera by Clodo
#declare odsIPD = 0.065;
#declare odsLocationX = 0;
#declare odsLocationY = 0;
#declare odsLocationZ = -1;
#declare odsDirectionX = 0;
#declare odsDirectionY = 0;
#declare odsDirectionZ = 1;
camera {
       user_defined
       location {
         function { odsLocationX + cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi -
pi)*odsIPD/2*select(x,-1,1) }
         function { odsLocationY }
         function { odsLocationZ + sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi -
pi)*odsIPD/2*select(x,-1,1) }
       }
       direction {
         function { sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * 
cos(pi / 2 -
(1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
         function { sin(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
         function { cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * 
cos(pi / 2 -
(1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
       }
     }

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/2016 06:35 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
>    Hmmm... I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but even with a simple
> test scene all I get is a black image. I'm using the latest alpha, and
> it doesn't gives any error, but the ray count on the output is zero. Any
> ideas?
>

I see the same with your scene. This user defined camera:

camera {
        user_defined
        location {
          function { x }
          function { y }
          function { 0 }
        }
        direction {
          function { x }
          function { y }
          function { 1 }
        }
}

works for me. Something other than the new camera amiss I guess, but 
what...

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>    Hmmm... I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but even with a simple
> test scene all I get is a black image. I'm using the latest alpha, and
> it doesn't gives any error, but the ray count on the output is zero. Any
> ideas?


- I downloaded the official POV-Ray.
- I downloaded this build (64 bit) and replace only the .exe in the POV-Ray
official
https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-alpha.8509766%2Bav119
- Open, create jaime.pov with exactly your code above, render:
http://www.clodo.it/host/images/a1c9425560bdcc869a362d71bfb6b11b339e3512.png
(480000 rays count).

Maybe you have a different Alpha build?

Post a reply to this message

> Maybe you have a different Alpha build?

   Yes, I have the latest one (8514084), compiled from sources with gcc.
It should have the user defined camera too, because it accepts the
syntax and works when using functions that mimic the default camera:

camera{
   user_defined
   location{
     function{x}
     function{y}
     function{-1}
   }
   direction{
     function{x*4/3}
     function{y}
     function{1}
   }
}


hmmmm...

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/2016 09:33 AM, Clodo wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>>     Hmmm... I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but even with a simple
>> test scene all I get is a black image. I'm using the latest alpha, and
>> it doesn't gives any error, but the ray count on the output is zero. Any
>> ideas?
>
>
> - I downloaded the official POV-Ray.
> - I downloaded this build (64 bit) and replace only the .exe in the POV-Ray
> official
> https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-alpha.8509766%2Bav119
> - Open, create jaime.pov with exactly your code above, render:
> http://www.clodo.it/host/images/a1c9425560bdcc869a362d71bfb6b11b339e3512.png
> (480000 rays count).
>
> Maybe you have a different Alpha build?
>

I am on Ubuntu 14.04 - as is Jamie normally - and using 
3.7.1-alpha.8514084.unofficial.

I am starting to wonder if this is another windows/unix difference. I 
think Christoph said something like a direction of 0 renders nothing. If 
I change Jamie's directional functions only to :

                    direction {
             function { sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * 
cos(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
             function { sin(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
         //  function { cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) * 
cos(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
             function { 1 }
           }

I do see a result though not the correct one. Guess I'll see if I can 
step back to 8509766 first.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/2016 10:17 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I am on Ubuntu 14.04 - as is Jamie normally - and using
> 3.7.1-alpha.8514084.unofficial.
>
> I am starting to wonder if this is another windows/unix difference. I
> think Christoph said something like a direction of 0 renders nothing. If
> I change Jamie's directional functions only to :
>
>                     direction {
>              function { sin(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) *
> cos(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>              function { sin(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>          //  function { cos(select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi - pi) *
> cos(pi / 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>              function { 1 }
>            }
>
> I do see a result though not the correct one. Guess I'll see if I can
> step back to 8509766 first.
>
> Bill P.

8509766 gives me the same result on Ubuntu 14.04.

Interesting too is that changing the z directional function to:

function { 0.1+cos((select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi) - pi) * cos(pi / 
2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }

gives a partial image.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

> Interesting too is that changing the z directional function to:
>
> function { 0.1+cos((select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi) - pi) * cos(pi /
> 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>
> gives a partial image.

   Yes, for me +1 gives one part, and -1 seems to give the rest.

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/2016 10:37 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

>> Interesting too is that changing the z directional function to:
>>
>> function { 0.1+cos((select(x,(x+0.5)*2,(x*2)) * 2 * pi) - pi) * cos(pi /
>> 2 - (1-(y+0.5))*pi) }
>>
>> gives a partial image.
>
>    Yes, for me +1 gives one part, and -1 seems to give the rest.
>
> --
> jaime
>

It looks like the difference has something to do with this test in 
<install>/source/core/render/tracepixel.cpp :

//          if (cameraDirection.IsNearNull(EPSILON))
//              return false;

because if commented as shown above, I get the same result seen from the 
posted windows exe result. I'm still playing and I'll post more if I 
learn more.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message