Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Five Camera Stitch debate

Expand Messages
  • Ron Proctor
    Hi everyone, To be honest, we stopped using a 5 camera cluster a long time ago, in favor of mirror rendering in Blender. The calculations I shared got the
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone,

      To be honest, we stopped using a 5 camera cluster a long time ago, in favor
      of mirror rendering in Blender. The calculations I shared got the best
      results for us, but we may have been overshooting the mark.

      With testing, you should be able to optimize the source renders. I wouldn't
      be surprised if your optimized number is something lower than what I
      suggested but higher than a through-the-zenith count.

      It seems a shame that 40% of the rendered pixels are thrown out to make the
      fisheye. Masking the lower half of the surrounding cameras is a great
      idea.

      Paul's idea is good too -- there is also a three camera scheme floating
      around.

      In our end: since switching to mirror rendering in Blender, our average
      render time for a 2000x2000 fisheye is about 20 seconds per frame per CPU
      (depending on complexity). The interesting thing is that a regular camera
      takes a longer time to render at the same resolution (in Blender).

      You can check out our camera set up here:

      weber.edu/planetarium/productionshare

      --
      Ron Proctor
      Production Director
      Ott Planetarium - Weber State University
      weber.edu/planetarium
      801.626.6871
    • Tom Casey
      There are times when one approach work better than others... sometimes there is no choice... and it s all software dependent. Here at Home Run Pictures, we use
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 20, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        There are times when one approach work better than others...
        sometimes there is no choice... and it's all software dependent.
        Here at Home Run Pictures, we use several different approaches... a
        multi-camera cluster, a single camera view, etc. Depending on what
        we are rendering determines which path we take... either because of
        faster rendering, what rendering CPUs are available, not needing a
        full circle render (small element in the scene), or just because a
        certain camera approach will not render an effect correctly. At
        times a single camera approach is very memory intensive and the multi-
        camera cluster is preferable since you are only seeing a smaller area
        of the scene with each camera. Other times a refracting or
        reflecting path will not allow certain effects to render correctly,
        like glows, reflections or shadows, etc.

        It all depends on what your end need is. As they say, "the end
        justifies the means," at least in rendering fulldome scenes, which
        always is a challenge... so pick your poison.

        Tom


        On Oct 16, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Ron Proctor wrote:

        To be honest, we stopped using a 5 camera cluster a long time ago,
        in favor of mirror rendering in Blender.

        ************************************************
        H o m e R u n P i c t u r e s

        Tom Casey
        President & Creative Director

        100 First Avenue - Suite 450
        Pittsburgh, PA 15222
        412-391-8200
        mailto:tom@...
        http://www.homerunpictures.com
      • Paul Bourke
        ... Ahhh, I remember it well ... doing the Mars (MOLA) flyover for Infinity Express for SkySkan based upon the (then exciting) 1/32 data of the whole planet.
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 21, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          > At times a single camera approach is very memory intensive and the multi-
          > camera cluster is preferable since you are only seeing a smaller area
          > of the scene with each camera.

          Ahhh, I remember it well ... doing the Mars (MOLA) flyover for "Infinity
          Express" for SkySkan based upon the (then exciting) 1/32 data of the whole
          planet. I had the choice of fisheye or cubic maps but it was indeed better
          to use cubic maps because it allowed more pruning of the triangle database
          than what one could do with rendering fisheye directly. Hence the original
          reason for writing my cubic map to fisheye stitcher.

          A bit of history for those who care about such things.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.