fish eye cityscape

Get feedback from others on your works in progress
User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:48 am

ah ha! my original screen had a normals problem.

trying a quick test render now (using v0.7t5) whilst at work (naughty naughy - good job in work in the creative industry :lol: )

It seems to be a patchwork of random colours at the minute. I will try a render with v0.6final later, if I can sneak it onto this machine :)

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:38 am

i can't get the screen method to work at all :(
Attachments
im1175172217.png
with v0.7t5
im1175172217.png (100.03 KiB) Viewed 1487 times
im1175173150.png
with 0.6final
im1175173150.png (91.88 KiB) Viewed 1488 times

mrCarnivore
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:20 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Post by mrCarnivore » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:59 am

Mmh, maybe you didn't use the right focus or you didn't place the screen in the correct distance to the lens.

Could you show a screenshot of the setup in blender?

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:07 am

it's laid out according to the crossection diagram. the line on the far right is the position of the viewing screen.

in my other fisheye thread, i've actually attached a .blend file if you want to download and have a go yourself. You'll have to fix the normals on the screen before you render though.
(also, on layer 3 - i think - are the raw curves for the lenses in case you want to remodel them yourself).

Anyway, I really ought to get back to work :x

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:29 am

the aperture!

the image is getting clearer now that I've put in an aperture!

I have a feeling though that the hole size will have to be infinitessimally small in order to get sharp focus - which would also mean very very very long render times.

It's looking good though, just wish I had doen it properly form the start... :oops:

User avatar
OnoSendai
Developer
Posts: 6225
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Wellington, NZ
Contact:

Post by OnoSendai » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:38 am

The whole point of lenses is that you don't need an infinitely small aperture (pinhole camera) to get a focused image.

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:44 am

OnoSendai wrote:The whole point of lenses is that you don't need an infinitely small aperture (pinhole camera) to get a focused image.
this did cross my mind... so why then does it not work?

StompinTom
Indigo 100
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by StompinTom » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:23 am

could be because youre taking a picture through this lens with a camera that already has a simulated lens. this is why i thought itd be neat to have an option of just using a film plane as a camera so that you can create your own lenses and have them perform realistically.
right now its like taking a camera and shooting trhough a lens rather than putting this lens on an SLR, know what i mean?

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:05 am

ah, but it's still possible to use a camera (indigo's camera) to take a picture of a projected image (my lens/screen combination).

Kyokutan
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:56 am

Post by Kyokutan » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:44 am

I made a pinhole test. (Someone made one some time ago)
The image is projected on a screen, like ono suggested. (look Pinhole.blend)

(Normal.jpg mirrored for better comparison)
Attachments
Normal.jpg
Rendered 3 minutes
(Mirrored for better comparison)
Normal.jpg (79.44 KiB) Viewed 1418 times
Pinhole.jpg
Rendered 3 hours
Pinhole.jpg (105.04 KiB) Viewed 1419 times
Pinhole.zip
(42.19 KiB) Downloaded 110 times

StompinTom
Indigo 100
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by StompinTom » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:23 am

dougal2 wrote:ah, but it's still possible to use a camera (indigo's camera) to take a picture of a projected image (my lens/screen combination).
true... i just wonder if it would be faster to have a film object so that the light doesnt have to bounce off the screen and go through the virtual camera. the difference would probably be seconds anyways. meh.

Post Reply
26 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests