fish eye cityscape

dougal2 · 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

)

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

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

i can't get the screen method to work at all

mrCarnivore · 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?

dougal2 · 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

dougal2 · 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...

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.

dougal2 · 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 · 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?

dougal2 · 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 · 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)

StompinTom · 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.