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.

fish eye cityscape

Who is online