Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

[40th]

When I use spherical camera with Physical Cam On and set the FOV to 360 the render is coming out all black. but if decrease the FOV to even 359.99 it renders as expected.

Is it an issue/bug or I'm doing something wrong?

[dkendig]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

359 should cover all degrees from 0 to 359. 0 degrees and 360 degrees are the same, so if you set it to 359, you shouldn't be missing out on anything. I think we may have had something in our last version that automatically changed 360 to 0 on the backend, and we haven't put that functionallity in to this latest version yet. I might just make it so you aren't able to set the value to 360, and it stops at 359.

[40th]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

My final goal is to make a VR 360 image.
For some reason when I check the override FOV the exposure changes dramticaly, even though I didn't change any of the Phys. Cam. Settings.
Here's screen shots:

[gallystops]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

hmmm, i just did two of them yesterday and they were fine. I have the latest version and all i did was override to 359 and they turned out ok.

Im curious to see what the problem is.

[40th]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

359 deg worked fine for me as well. But 360 or 0 are sometimes works sometime doesn't.

[dkendig]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

yeah, don't use 360...

[thomthom]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

359 should cover all degrees from 0 to 359. 0 degrees and 360 degrees are the same,

But if you want a 360 degree image that cover everything - doesn't 0-359 mean you are missing 1 degree? Surely you want to be able to set 360 so it covers 100%?

[fpedrogo]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

359 should cover all degrees from 0 to 359. 0 degrees and 360 degrees are the same,
But if you want a 360 degree image that cover everything - doesn't 0-359 mean you are missing 1 degree? Surely you want to be able to set 360 so it covers 100%?

Basically 0 and 360 have the same position. So you should not miss anything.

[dkendig]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

in programming, we generally start with 0

0-9 is 10 values:
0123456789

0-359 is 360 values

0-360 is 361 values

I know it's dumb programming math stuff.

[40th]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

in programming, we generally start with 0

0-9 is 10 values:
0123456789

0-359 is 360 values

0-360 is 361 values

I know it's dumb programming math stuff.

So it's impossible to get 360 deg (100% coverage) ?

[dkendig]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

oh my, this explanation isn't working at all is it... Let's try this again...

359 is 100% coverage... it's offset by one. So if you enter 360, you're really entering 361 degrees. If you enter 359, it's 360 degrees. Unless I'm wrong and you can show me that 359 doesn't give you 100% coverage. Let's do that first. Show me the actual problem, instead of telling me that you can't enter in the number 360 and have it work properly.

[40th]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

I did a render with a FOV of 359 and it was flawless. Its just counterintuitive that for 360 deg you need to enter 359... :

[dkendig]

Re: Spherical Camera Issue [1.48.89]

Its just counterintuitive that for 360 deg you need to enter 359...

That, I couldn't agree with more. We'll try to fix it after we fix some of the other issues that are on the table.