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

Re: Field of View

Expand Messages
  • Ed Lantz
    ... Ryan, doesn t compressing a 200 degree FOV (field-of-view) into a 180 degree FOV display cause a vertical aspect-ratio problems? I would expect a vertical
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Ryan writes:

      >...A further oddity, as long as I'm listing them (and it relates to a
      >topic which just came up): we have a design eyepoint with a 200
      >degree field of view. This allows us to see a full panorama around
      >the circumference of the dome (important for a theater with
      >concentric seating), but it makes for interesting design challenges
      >when setting up flight paths, etc. Just so you know... If you lease
      >one of our shows, you'll be getting a full 3600 more square degrees
      >of image!

      Ryan, doesn't compressing a 200 degree FOV (field-of-view)
      into a 180 degree FOV display cause a vertical aspect-ratio
      problems? I would expect a vertical compression of objects,
      since the horizontal FOV is unchanged, but the vertical FOV
      is now greater. Come to think of it, planets in your shows
      do seem squeezed a bit. I actually like the idea of
      rendering more foreground, even in tilted unidirectional
      domes, so I am interested in how far the vertical FOV can be
      expanded without it becoming a distraction.

      When we render the environment to appear exactly as if we
      were present in that environment - including a level horizon
      - we loose a lot of foreground (depending on dome tilt).
      Imagine that you are walking around with a collar that
      blocks your FOV behind you, beside you, and in front of you,
      creating a tilted horizon that dips 10 degrees below
      horizontal in front of you. You would be severely
      handicapped. That is how a 10-degree tilted camera/dome
      makes me feel. I want to see more foreground in front of me
      and on the sides of me (I could care less what's behind me).

      The only two solutions (short of increasing dome tilt) are
      tilting the camera and increasing FOV beyond 180 degrees.
      Camera tilt creates the sensation of a non-level horizon -
      ok for some uses. Increasing FOV brings the horizon higher
      on the dome. If anyone's experimented with extending
      vertical FOV, I'd be curious to hear more about your
      experience with it.

      Ed Lantz
      Spitz, Inc.
    • David Miller
      If you re dealing with the 5 panel and stitch production method there is a third solution you can correct for both tilt and compression in the stitching
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        If you're dealing with the 5 panel and stitch production method there
        is a third solution you can correct for both tilt and compression in
        the stitching process. Not exactly ideal but does keep you from having
        to re-render sequences in your 3d software. Compression does
        introduce some distortion but has it's uses especially for
        landscape/panorama's in non-tilted dome and/or concentric
        seating domes allowing you to fake the horizon up a bit and
        getting some foreground. It's especially useful for non-tilted domes
        that are < 180 degrees.
        --
        David Miller
        Graphic Artist
        Sky-Skan, Inc.
        Nashua, NH

        Ed wrote:

        The only two solutions (short of increasing dome tilt) are
        tilting the camera and increasing FOV beyond 180 degrees.
        Camera tilt creates the sensation of a non-level horizon -
        ok for some uses. Increasing FOV brings the horizon higher
        on the dome. If anyone's experimented with extending
        vertical FOV, I'd be curious to hear more about your
        experience with it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.