Destiny wrote:There is a Z value Klaus.. Its static but its there and placed exactly at centre point.. The size of your images governs the distance from the face to the centre point, which is the static Z value. The Z value never moves... The X, moves left to right and the Y from Zenith to Nadir, both of which are pivoted from the absolute Z value.. There is no - or + on the Z but its there by virtual of the fact that its a virtual 3D environment. You cannot edit the Z value so it does not appear in your code since it has to remain where it is or the rotation of the sphere will become unstable. The zoom value is by virtue derived from the size of your sphere and the image quality to stop at a specified zoom distance which is linked to the size of your image quality.
You enter a 3D environment to capture your images. You use your 2D images, a human term for X Y media, and stitch them to create a 3D cube, with images that have the illusion that they are convex to create the full illusion of being inside a 3D space which is in fact the inside of a cube made to appear as if you are inside a sphere, which is worked out by the software and the images if captured using a fisheye lens, to create the illusion of being inside a 3D space. So, when others say its a 3D Virtual Tour, they are right.. and if others call it a 360 Virtual Tour, they too are right.
Destiny wrote:It might not be actually 3D as we know it to be, but its still a 3D illusion of a 3D environment . .
AlexandreJ wrote:Semantics of 360° or 3D. Complicated in any case.
. . .
I think the real key is 'fixed point of view' or not fixed point of view ( 3D over true 3D )
Artisan S. wrote:Now you ask a interresting question.....were is the Z-axis in a Sphere......
Artisan S. wrote:But that also has nothing to do with the fact that a VR Sphere is a sphere and a sphere is a 3D object.
Sometimes clients talk of "3D-animation" when it comes to interactive 360x180° panoramas.
ThatÂ´s kind of a problem - because itÂ´s no "3D animation" at all.
Artisan S. wrote:BTW, I have no bias towards Klaus, all be it that I'm sometimes are not to fond of his repeating argument debating technique.....he could brush up on that a bit.....
Artisan S. wrote:....but I do differ if Klaus thinks withholding the term 3D for VR Spheres will be the solution since that is not the big difference......
Artisan S. wrote:the difference is the way both 3D worlds are generated....
Artisan S. wrote:ThatÂ´s not the point. The point is: we are projecting 2D images on a sphere resp. cube. That doesnÂ´t make them 3D at all.
This is unfortunately mathematically and topologically not true.....if I project on a sphere the 2D object is curved in the third dimension,
Artisan S. wrote:roll
Klaus, if you don't understand these mathematics, that it's entrirely and utterly your problem, as a photographer I do not expect you too, as I said mathematics are hard to get rid of Klaus, but of course they can be ignored.
For the non ignorers who want to KNOW what PTP and KRPANO are all about....well some excellent read, and free as well allthough I will try to order a copy of the book in which I can make dogears......have to buy the Stephane Hessel book tomorrow anyway....so lets see:
and as a last final try.....a projection on a sphere uses the two coà¶rdinates per point....a yaw and a pitch, but that is only possible since you project on a sphere with a fixed radius......otherwise you'de be projecting in mid air........now yaw, pitch and RADIUS define a polar coà¶rdinate triplet...that is Euler space Klaus (listen to the talk Alexandre Jenny gave at Microsoft he even mentions Euler space somewhere half way down the talk).....also dead science.....now this can be described as a carthesian coordinate system as well.....via a euler-carthesian transformation (simple highschool math of the boring sin/cos variety).....which will describe the point in a 3D (oops) grid of an X, Y and Z axis.....
gkaefer wrote:Ed, however you or anyone else defines 3D - this is not the point at all, no doubts here or questions on anyones skills. An animation contains motion. Motion can be achieved by using handdrawn images or finally with modern CGI or whatever software or by filing with howver medium. In panoramas (at least for the next week before ptp2.x with livevideo is out ) you use one single source image for your tour that can be based on different projections. So your panorama contains no animation so it cant represent a 3d-animation. You can make your panorama intereactive by placing 3D objects (hotspots, rectagles, stills or animated ones containing sound, video, text, images whatever - yea even Destinys wonderful examples can be achieved using 3D objects), but your tour does not get a "3D animation" because of that. Of course you've a sphere and this is defined in 3 dimensions. again this is not the topic. Klaus believes that it can cause troubles if "3D animation" is used in conjunction with virtual (interactive) panorama tours towards a customer, in special if this customer does come from this "Maya" industry.
if I'm off topic here - sorry. This is just my understanding/interpretation of reading #1.
Artisan S. wrote:I wouldn't have a clue Klaus...I wouldn't have a clue......
Artisan S. wrote:but that is screenshot of the editor.....
But there are shadows on other parts of the very same image . . hmm
Artisan S. wrote:BTW, Klaus I have asked Alexandre to ban me (on my IP adres) from this forum, for life....I hope he agrees and does me the favour.......
Artisan S. wrote:But there are shadows on other parts of the very same image . . hmm
Klaus do you actually read....or are you just out to get everyone that does not agree with you? Well if you are....what does that make you Klaus....think, think hard.....I finally give up talking to you oh great Klaus, since your vannity has turned you blind, deaf and (unfortunaly not numb). Now I personally am getting sick of your behaviour....your constant discrediting....I hope it amusses you....but I'm sick and tired and will no longer ammuse you.....adieu Klaus....as the French so nicelly put it.
Its nice to see that you have conceded to being wrong...
It might not be actually 3D as we know it to be, but its still a 3D illusion of a 3D environment which is the same thing since its virtual reality. When I teach my students how to find the mass or volume of a 3D object, their answer is cubed to the power of 3 which is 3D... The pano sphere has a length, height and depth of a 3D virtual environment which means its 3D.... And since you can pan it in all directions its Interactive and since you can put it to auto, its also an animated 3D scene..
A 3D Virtual Reality scene does not physically exist but its still a 3D illusion. A 3D object does not physically exist either within a computer, again its an illusion created by maths xyz light, shading and colour to create the interpretation of 3D form, unless you use the stl maths code to print it to physical form.
Hope you had a nice sleep...
HansKeesom wrote:We are back in the 80's here. Who of you was already born then, just curious.
HansKeesom wrote:In a real 3D environment 2 coordinates would not be enough, you would have a third telling you the distance to the object you want to point at. As we do not need this third coordinate in a panorama, it is NOT 3D.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest