[Radiance-general] panotools to map textures, patterns etc?
Peter Apian-Bennewitz
[email protected]
Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:28:26 +0100
--------------58D68BBB729ED468D9AC0D89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Lars O. Grobe" wrote:
> > I can only speak for myself, but enabling casual users to
> > place mappings without effort is not very high on my list of
> > priorities.
>
> Mappings are usually not the most important feature in radiance at all.
I've found rshow's semi-automatic mapping for polygons quite useful in
projects, but
maybe that's why it had been added....
> > (especially after buying a certain piece of software on Ebay)
>
> ;-) this "piece of software" is happily running on my laptop now!
?
> There's just one reason for my question. I am working on a model of a
> church. In fact, mappings are not the most important for our project,
> but we have documented most important surfaces. So we have photos of the
> domes, what AFAIK means a planar projection of a spherical surface. I
> wonder how I would map this easily, if it gets important... ooops....
> might it be that I could simply map it as on a planar surface in this
> case...?
Reproducing the 3d->2d transformation of the camera results in the image
being where it was (well, not actually very suprisingly).
For long focal length, a planar mapping approximates the perspective
transformation. That works whether the surface is
actually planar or spherical, as you guessed,
-Peter
--
pab-opto, Freiburg, Germany, www.pab-opto.de
--------------58D68BBB729ED468D9AC0D89
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
"Lars O. Grobe" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> I can only speak for myself, but enabling casual
users to
<br>> place mappings without effort is not very high on my list of
<br>> priorities.
<p>Mappings are usually not the most important feature in radiance at all.</blockquote>
I've found rshow's semi-automatic mapping for polygons quite useful
in projects, but
<br>maybe that's why it had been added....
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> (especially after buying a certain piece of software
on Ebay)
<p>;-) this "piece of software" is happily running on my laptop now!</blockquote>
?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>There's just one reason for my question. I am working
on a model of a
<br>church. In fact, mappings are not the most important for our project,
<br>but we have documented most important surfaces. So we have photos of
the
<br>domes, what AFAIK means a planar projection of a spherical surface.
I
<br>wonder how I would map this easily, if it gets important... ooops....
<br>might it be that I could simply map it as on a planar surface in this
<br>case...?</blockquote>
Reproducing the 3d->2d transformation of the camera results in the image
being where it was (well, not actually very suprisingly).
<br>For long focal length, a planar mapping approximates the
perspective transformation. That works whether the surface is
<br>actually planar or spherical, as you guessed,
<p>-Peter
<br>
<pre>--
pab-opto, Freiburg, Germany, www.pab-opto.de</pre>
</html>
--------------58D68BBB729ED468D9AC0D89--