"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
> 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

I dont think that you are missing something here. My idea was the first I had in
my mind as I saw Jaimes picture. So I gave it a fast test. I think your idea and
Stephens may work better, but I came not up with this.

For me it was just a short and welcome distraction from more urgent RL issues.
Meanwhile I wonder why we simulate this camera at all. I learned about the
existence of plenoptic cameras by Jaimes posting first and found soon an article
from the Stanford group. As I understand it, their mean goal is to get more
depth of field with this camera as with an usual one. Didn't we have the problem
to get less DOF using focal blur? If one is intended in photorealistic rendering
of the results of an plenoptic camera, then this pictures must be heavily
postprocessed by analysing every field and composing an image from them. This
maths seems to be not trivial.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message