Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA23813 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:45:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA208527217; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:46:58 -0800
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:46:56 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <199602010639.XAA27375@earth.usa.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: James Jones/Nibbles and Bits <jgjones@usa.net>
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Focus Target
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: O
X-Status:
Erniew@access.digex.net said:
>LW simulates DOF by turning the camera a little before each AA pass.
>LW's viewing system is equivalent to a pinhole camera. By jittering
>the view, LW is able to sample from a number of closely spaced pin-
>holes--sample over an area equivalent to a real camera's aperture.
>It's approximate in the sense that the number of samples is finite,
>but it's physically correct otherwise.
>
>And it's a lot more accurate than that 1/3 : 2/3 rule of thumb.
If the camera is turned (rotated) about the focal distance, would
not the apparent DOF proportions be dependent on the amount of
perspective present?
For example, if the Zoom Factor were set to a very high value to
simulate an orthographic view, the DOF proportions would be
