Empathy List Archives

NH

nop head

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 4:09 PM

I started playing with the latest Win32 dev snapshot and immediately
noticed I have to get much closer to the object to get it to appear the
same size and it then gives a fish eye view.

Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the same
perspective view as before?

I don't know much about photography and lenses but isn't there a standard
camera setup that matches the human eye so objects look natural regardless
of there size? I assume this would only be true while OpenScad units
corresponded to mm.

I started playing with the latest Win32 dev snapshot and immediately noticed I have to get much closer to the object to get it to appear the same size and it then gives a fish eye view. Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the same perspective view as before? I don't know much about photography and lenses but isn't there a standard camera setup that matches the human eye so objects look natural regardless of there size? I assume this would only be true while OpenScad units corresponded to mm.

MK

Marius Kintel

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 4:25 PM

On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the same perspective view as before?

We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was kind of weird.
Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that you’re not used to it?

-Marius

On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the same perspective view as before? > We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was kind of weird. Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that you’re not used to it? -Marius

NH

nop head

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 5:01 PM

I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own eyes. It
gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them fill the view I
have to move the camera very close. The image it gives then corresponds to
placing my eye that close and it filling my field of view. It is then shown
on a small part of a screen or a printed page viewed at arms length. That
is why it looks wrong as it might be a similar size to the real object held
at arms length but is a picture of it from inches away.

I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the same as a
real camera would if you photograph something small such that it fills the
picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is correct. Since I use it to
automatically build a manual it would mean going through every image and
repositioning the camera. Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter.

On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel marius@kintel.net wrote:

On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the

same perspective view as before?

We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was
kind of weird.
Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that
you're not used to it?

-Marius

OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own eyes. It gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them fill the view I have to move the camera very close. The image it gives then corresponds to placing my eye that close and it filling my field of view. It is then shown on a small part of a screen or a printed page viewed at arms length. That is why it looks wrong as it might be a similar size to the real object held at arms length but is a picture of it from inches away. I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the same as a real camera would if you photograph something small such that it fills the picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is correct. Since I use it to automatically build a manual it would mean going through every image and repositioning the camera. Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter. On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel <marius@kintel.net> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the > same perspective view as before? > > > We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was > kind of weird. > Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that > you're not used to it? > > -Marius > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >

NH

nop head

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 5:17 PM

Here is an example of an 80mm fan duct:

The old version looks like I would actually see a fan duct in front of me.

The new one looks a close up photo, which I would not see with my own eyes
unless I held up up to my face.

On 8 February 2015 at 17:01, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own eyes. It
gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them fill the view I
have to move the camera very close. The image it gives then corresponds to
placing my eye that close and it filling my field of view. It is then shown
on a small part of a screen or a printed page viewed at arms length. That
is why it looks wrong as it might be a similar size to the real object held
at arms length but is a picture of it from inches away.

I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the same as
a real camera would if you photograph something small such that it fills
the picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is correct. Since I use it to
automatically build a manual it would mean going through every image and
repositioning the camera. Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter.

On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel marius@kintel.net wrote:

On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the

same perspective view as before?

We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was
kind of weird.
Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that
you're not used to it?

-Marius

OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

Here is an example of an 80mm fan duct: The old version looks like I would actually see a fan duct in front of me. The new one looks a close up photo, which I would not see with my own eyes unless I held up up to my face. On 8 February 2015 at 17:01, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own eyes. It > gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them fill the view I > have to move the camera very close. The image it gives then corresponds to > placing my eye that close and it filling my field of view. It is then shown > on a small part of a screen or a printed page viewed at arms length. That > is why it looks wrong as it might be a similar size to the real object held > at arms length but is a picture of it from inches away. > > I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the same as > a real camera would if you photograph something small such that it fills > the picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is correct. Since I use it to > automatically build a manual it would mean going through every image and > repositioning the camera. Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter. > > > > On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel <marius@kintel.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way to get the >> same perspective view as before? >> > >> We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the old one was >> kind of weird. >> Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it mostly that >> you're not used to it? >> >> -Marius >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> Discuss@lists.openscad.org >> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >> > >

MD

Michele Denber

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 5:58 PM

They look like two different projections to me, not just different view
points. The upper one looks like a pictorial orthographic projection
and the lower one a perspective projection.

They look like two different projections to me, not just different view points. The upper one looks like a pictorial orthographic projection and the lower one a perspective projection.

NH

nop head

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 6:02 PM

This is what otho looks like. It looks bigger at the back because it is the
same as the front but you brain expects perspective.

On 8 February 2015 at 17:58, Michele Denber denber@mindspring.com wrote:

They look like two different projections to me, not just different view
points. The upper one looks like a pictorial orthographic projection and
the lower one a perspective projection.

OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

This is what otho looks like. It looks bigger at the back because it is the same as the front but you brain expects perspective. On 8 February 2015 at 17:58, Michele Denber <denber@mindspring.com> wrote: > They look like two different projections to me, not just different view > points. The upper one looks like a pictorial orthographic projection and > the lower one a perspective projection. > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >

J

jon

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 8:37 PM

I did an A/B test of the two pictures, flickering them back and forth,
and I cannot see the differences that bother you. That said I would
imagine that adding a Zoom parameter for the "lens" would be fairly
simple, and would resolve this quickly.

On 2/8/2015 9:17 AM, nop head wrote:

Here is an example of an 80mm fan duct:

The old version looks like I would actually see a fan duct in front of me.

The new one looks a close up photo, which I would not see with my own
eyes unless I held up up to my face.

On 8 February 2015 at 17:01, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com
mailto:nop.head@gmail.com> wrote:

 I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own
 eyes. It gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them
 fill the view I have to move the camera very close. The image it
 gives then corresponds to placing my eye that close and it filling
 my field of view. It is then shown on a small part of a screen or
 a printed page viewed at arms length. That is why it looks wrong
 as it might be a similar size to the real object held at arms
 length but is a picture of it from inches away.

 I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the
 same as a real camera would if you photograph something small such
 that it fills the picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is
 correct. Since I use it to automatically build a manual it would
 mean going through every image and repositioning the camera.
 Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter.



 On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel <marius@kintel.net
 <mailto:marius@kintel.net>> wrote:

     On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com
     <mailto:nop.head@gmail.com>> wrote:

Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way

     to get the same perspective view as before?

     We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the
     old one was kind of weird.
     Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it
     mostly that you’re not used to it?

      -Marius


     _______________________________________________
     OpenSCAD mailing list
     Discuss@lists.openscad.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.openscad.org>
     http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

I did an A/B test of the two pictures, flickering them back and forth, and I cannot see the differences that bother you. That said I would imagine that adding a Zoom parameter for the "lens" would be fairly simple, and would resolve this quickly. On 2/8/2015 9:17 AM, nop head wrote: > Here is an example of an 80mm fan duct: > > The old version looks like I would actually see a fan duct in front of me. > > > > The new one looks a close up photo, which I would not see with my own > eyes unless I held up up to my face. > > > > > On 8 February 2015 at 17:01, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com > <mailto:nop.head@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I don't think it is case of what I am used to, other than my own > eyes. It gives a fish eye view of my objects because to make them > fill the view I have to move the camera very close. The image it > gives then corresponds to placing my eye that close and it filling > my field of view. It is then shown on a small part of a screen or > a printed page viewed at arms length. That is why it looks wrong > as it might be a similar size to the real object held at arms > length but is a picture of it from inches away. > > I am not sure what the correct solution is. I suppose it does the > same as a real camera would if you photograph something small such > that it fills the picture without using zoom, so perhaps it is > correct. Since I use it to automatically build a manual it would > mean going through every image and repositioning the camera. > Possibly the camera should have a zoom parameter. > > > > On 8 February 2015 at 16:25, Marius Kintel <marius@kintel.net > <mailto:marius@kintel.net>> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2015, at 11:09 AM, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com > <mailto:nop.head@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Is this an intentional change, if so why? Is there any way > to get the same perspective view as before? > > > We changed it to using a more standard camera angle, as the > old one was kind of weird. > Is this causing problems for you, does it look ugly, or is it > mostly that you’re not used to it? > > -Marius > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.openscad.org> > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

M

MichaelAtOz

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 11:33 PM

In 2014.03, View/ResetView, distance=500.

Orthogonal
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Orth.jpg

Perspective
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Persp.jpg

In 2015.02.05, View/ResetView, distance=140.

Orthogonal
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Orth.jpg

Perspective
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Persp.jpg

There is only a slight change between Orthogonal/Perspective in 2014.03

The 2015 Perspective is wrong.
I don't know what the distance difference means.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11573.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

In 2014.03, View/ResetView, distance=500. Orthogonal <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Orth.jpg> Perspective <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Persp.jpg> In 2015.02.05, View/ResetView, distance=140. Orthogonal <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Orth.jpg> Perspective <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Persp.jpg> There is only a slight change between Orthogonal/Perspective in 2014.03 The 2015 Perspective is wrong. I don't know what the distance difference means. ----- Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above. The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ -- View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11573.html Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

M

MichaelAtOz

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 11:37 PM

Also the 2015 Orthogonal is much smaller than the other 3??

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11574.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Also the 2015 Orthogonal is much smaller than the other 3?? ----- Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above. The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ -- View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11574.html Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

NH

nop head

Sun, Feb 8, 2015 11:37 PM

I don't the perspective is wrong as such. It is correct when viewed from
the much shorter distance needed to make it fill the view. It is just that
humans don't normally view objects so close to the eye, only cameras do
when taking close ups.

On 8 February 2015 at 23:33, MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com wrote:

In 2014.03, View/ResetView, distance=500.

Orthogonal
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Orth.jpg

Perspective
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Persp.jpg

In 2015.02.05, View/ResetView, distance=140.

Orthogonal
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Orth.jpg

Perspective
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Persp.jpg

There is only a slight change between Orthogonal/Perspective in 2014.03

The 2015 Perspective is wrong.
I don't know what the distance difference means.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the
Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all
copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is
published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous
authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple "trade agreement." Fight it!
http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context:
http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11573.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org

I don't the perspective is wrong as such. It is correct when viewed from the much shorter distance needed to make it fill the view. It is just that humans don't normally view objects so close to the eye, only cameras do when taking close ups. On 8 February 2015 at 23:33, MichaelAtOz <oz.at.michael@gmail.com> wrote: > In 2014.03, View/ResetView, distance=500. > > Orthogonal > <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Orth.jpg> > > Perspective > <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/201403Persp.jpg> > > In 2015.02.05, View/ResetView, distance=140. > > Orthogonal > <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Orth.jpg> > > Perspective > <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11573/20150205Persp.jpg> > > There is only a slight change between Orthogonal/Perspective in 2014.03 > > The 2015 Perspective is wrong. > I don't know what the distance difference means. > > > > ----- > Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the > Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all > copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is > published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous > authors is not included in the above. > > The TPP is no simple "trade agreement." Fight it! > http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.openscad.org/Wide-angle-camera-tp11548p11573.html > Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >

discuss@lists.openscad.org

Wide angle camera

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple "trade agreement." Fight it!
http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

discuss@lists.openscad.org

Wide angle camera

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple "trade agreement." Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple "trade agreement." Fight it!
http://www.ourfairdeal.org/