[Sidefx-houdini-list] Camera model
colin.doncaster at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 05:39:05 EST 2012
Hi there -
Sure, a spherical or similar lens model is of course useful - but that's not what I think of when using lens grids to work out how a live action lens has distorted a plate which was the original example.
Depending on the footage tracking anything that has some sort of perceptual distortion has always led to tracking issues somewhere in a sequence - but to each their own.
On 2012-11-30, at 3:26 AM, Jordi Bares <jordibares at gmail.com> wrote:
> You may very well undistort plates yet render distorted, then compbon the original distorted footage to minimise transformations in the CG and the footage.
> Certainly simplifies the workflow by minimising dependencies.
> There are creative reasons too like rendering spherical panoramas for rides or immersive experiences and also for projection mapping for shows.
> Hope it helps
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Nov 2012, at 14:01, Frederic Servant <frederic.servant at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Colin, while I agree it's way better to undistort plates you sometimes have
>> to do this, for non-technical reasons and/or to speedup the turn around.
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Colin Doncaster
>> <colin.doncaster at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Why would you want to render distorted CG? How/where is that being used
>>> in a pipeline? In most cases you work out the lens distortion on the
>>> plate, de warp, track/roto/prep, integrate undistorted CG and elements and
>>> then rewarp.
>>> Maybe for an all CG render and I assume you want it to look "real" but in
>>> many cases I would argue these warp/dewarp tools are targeted at acquired
>>> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just curious as to where in the pipeline is
>>> the benefit?
>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list