[Bf-vfx] Tomato camera sensor changes

[Ejner Fergo]

Hi Matt,

I think it is important to note that what the render (resolution) does
and what the camera needs are two different things. Right now I'm
mostly concerned about the sensor size / field of view / focal length
calculations.

If we look further ahead, ala what you are proposing, I would rather
see the option to set the "resolution gate" - how the render output
fits inside the filmgate. Or maybe that is what you meant? I made an
example image:

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/781/resolutiongate.jpg

We will need this, but I don't see why the sensor patch can't be
included first...

Best Regards,

Ejner

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
> I had planned to look at this but unfortunately I didn't even up having any
> time so far ... sorry guys :(
> It's been a while since i looked at this, but at least on my initial
> inspection it seemed like blender was automatically deciding whether to use
> horizontal or vertical axes for part of the fov calculation, based on the
> aspect ratio of the render resolution settings, no?
> So maybe it might make sense to have a menu in the camera, something like
> FOV Axis: Auto/Horizontal/Vertical , where auto works as it does currently,
> but choosing explicitly horizontal or vertical base it completely of either
> of those axes. This may be totally wrong and not make sense sense, but it's
> how I remember it at least :)
> Matt
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Ejner Fergo <ejnersan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi François,
>>
>> >> I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean? "All the rest parameters"
>> >> in the camera settings is sensor dimensions (width/height). What is so
>> >> confusing about that? It's rather simple really, so what needs deeper
>> >> thought?
>> >
>> > its easy to understand when you know what you are talking about, but for
>> > most user, filmback or sensor size... well first they don't even know
>> > that
>> > param exists and if so, you can do a poll I pretty sure most of them
>> > won't
>> > know what it does affect.
>> > But I agree with you, it is not a reason to hide it entirely. Sergey is
>> > just
>> > looking for a nice way to put it so it doesn't get to confusing for
>> > people
>> > who don't use it much. Talk to many 3DS Max or other 3D packages user
>> > (beside maya) about filmgate and you'll see what I mean ;)
>>
>> Troy answered this best. If Blender should accommodate most users, we
>> could remove 80% of all settings. But this is a non issue, since most
>> users will not be affected by having both sensor dimensions available
>> (they use the default Blender preset - all is as before). Just because
>> the settings are there doesn't mean users have to learn/use it! And
>> even if many 3DS Max and others don't know what a filmgate is, these
>> apps still support it. Having both X and Y dimensions is not
>> confusing, it's the correct way.
>>
>> >> The vertical FOV, as you know, is defined by the sensor height, so we
>> >> need to input this. Preferably the actual dimension as before, or with
>> >> a device aspect.
>> >
>> > yeah but the heigh can be guessed by the width and the pixel ratio,
>> > that's
>> > what he meant by having params working together.
>> > No matter if you change one or another it will always affect the others.
>> > width, height, image ratio, pixel ratio
>>
>> Image resolution and render resolution are two different things. To
>> get the correct camera VFOV we need either the sensor height or device
>> aspect (sorry to repeat myself). That means an extra setting is needed
>> anyway.
>>
>> >> Why have the vertical FOV as a read-only property? Are importers not
>> >> as important (no pun..) as exporters? The Channel file format uses the
>> >> vertical FOV, so this should be able to be written to. The FBX format
>> >> also uses the vertical FOV both during export and import, so having
>> >> this as a read-only property is not so helpful.
>> >
>> > I agree with that :)
>>
>> Cool :)
>>
>> All in all I just don't understand why we can't just use the sensor
>> patch as it was. The "confusing" part is a non-issue IMHO.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ejner
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-vfx mailing list
>> Bf-vfx at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-vfx mailing list
> Bf-vfx at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-vfx
>
>