"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> >   Yes, but the mesh_camera is much faster, and the result is much
> > smoother and resolution-independent. The only pain is that with
> > distribution #3 you cannot use more than one mesh (to stack some lenses).
> > --
> > Jaime
>
> This was the reason to propose an other approach. I couldn't resist to test my
> idea, but yielded only poor efforts (as you can see). But why not put the model
> of a lense in front of the mesh cam?
>
> Best regards,
> Michael

I might be missing something fundamental to the topic at hand (wouldn't be the
first time ;) ), but why not just place the following in front of the camera?

#declare ArrayRes = 96;
box{
 <-0.5, -0.5, 0>, <0.5, 0.5, 0>
 pigment{rgb 0 transmit 1}
 normal{
  function{
   (1-(x*x+y*y)/2)
  } -4*2
  translate x+y
  scale 1/2
  warp{repeat x}
  warp{repeat y}
  scale 1/ArrayRes
 }
 finish{diffuse 0}
 interior{ior 1.5}
 no_shadow no_reflection
}

That's what I used when rendering the light field for my integral imaging sim.
My first attempt for this step used actual geometry, but too many artifacts were
produced, so I settled on this quick-to-parse, fast-to-render solution.

Sam

Post a reply to this message