Any features you'd like to see implemented into Maxwell?
By DELETED
#4241
DELETED
Last edited by DELETED on Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By tom
#4243
:lol: 8etty, I suggested the similar things under other subjects here. I think oscar gonna kill us because we're trying to make things complex than ever.
But I partly agree with you. :lol:
By DELETED
#4319
DELETED
User avatar
By Mihai
#4329
I agree about having lenses which emulate the distortion, which would be impossible to do in post, but the rest, such as different glass coatings for lenses, different glass, I think that would be better left to do in post.
By smeggy
#4378
I like the idea of having lens systems that work like their real-world counterparts, but due to their purely virtual nature are also not limited to what a real lens can achieve. Yes a 300mm lens focussed one inch away from a cockroach would have a DoF of about 1 nanometer but that's neither here not there. :wink:

As long as it was true to what a 300mm lens would do if you removed the physical constraints of lens construction then that would be good for me. :D
User avatar
By Ernesto
#100127
Yes,
I agree too, with this idea.
It could be possible to import and export diferent lenses.

Ernesto
User avatar
By Kabe
#100391
8etty wrote:implementing this, would also mean, you'd get all the 'errors' a real lens has..
Well, If you would like to build a full blown object simulator, then probably yes. But such a thing would be useless for evryone except a few optical engineers anyway.

In fact, in CG it is easier than everywhere else to build a "perfect lens" by definition. This should be done by defining the lens properties in a mathematical way. There is no need to waste render time by actually shooting rays through dieelectrics :-)

Kabe
By DELETED
#100394
DELETED

So, is this a known issue?

Thanks a lot for your response, I will update and […]

did you tried luxCore?