fish eye cityscape
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 )
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
trying a quick test render now (using v0.7t5) whilst at work (naughty naughy - good job in work in the creative industry )
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
-
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:20 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
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
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
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...
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...
-
- Posts: 1828
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm
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?
right now its like taking a camera and shooting trhough a lens rather than putting this lens on an SLR, know what i mean?
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)
The image is projected on a screen, like ono suggested. (look Pinhole.blend)
(Normal.jpg mirrored for better comparison)
- Attachments
-
- Rendered 3 minutes
(Mirrored for better comparison) - Normal.jpg (79.44 KiB) Viewed 2060 times
- Rendered 3 minutes
-
- Rendered 3 hours
- Pinhole.jpg (105.04 KiB) Viewed 2061 times
-
- Pinhole.zip
- (42.19 KiB) Downloaded 163 times
-
- Posts: 1828
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm
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.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).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 112 guests