I'm trying to visualize film camera crop and aspect ratio in Three.js. Please bear with me, it's a math problem, and I can't describe it in lesser words...
Instead of just using CameraHelper, I'm using three slightly modified CameraHelper objects for each camera. The helper lines can be seen when looking at a camera (cone), or when looking through a camera, the helper lines effectively create guide lines for the current camera.
Frame helper (bluish one with sides rendered). This is configured and supposed to be what an actual camera sees considering it's focal length and sensor or film dimensions. Calculated in getFOVFrame.
Monitor helper (white). Our frame aspect ratio here is 1.5. For example, if we plan to do a 2.35 (cinemascope) aspect ratio film with a camera of aspect ratio 1.5, this shows the crop area of the frame. So it needs to exactly fit the frame, with extra space either up and down or at the sides, but not both. Calculated in getFOVMonitor.
Screen helper (purple). We want full thing visible in the browser, and if the browser window dimensions/aspect ratio is different, we adjust the actual rendered Three.js camera so that it fits into the browser window and dimensions. So this helper always has the aspect ratio of current browser window, and focal length so that it fits the frame and monitor helper. Calculated in getFOVScreen
So based on our actual preferred camera (frame helper), we need to calculate the monitor camera and adjust it's fov that it exactly fits inside frame camera. Then we also need to calculate the screen camera and adjust it's fov that the frame camera exactly fits inside.
My current solution appears almost correct, but there is something wrong. With long lenses (small fov, big focal length) it seems correct:
Looking through, looks correct:
Both the current camera, and the camera in front look about correct:
Looking through, looks correct:
But at wide lenses (big fov, small focal length) the solution starts to break, there is extra space around the white monitor helper, for example:
Looking through, the white box should touch the bluish one from the sides:
Both the current camera, and the camera in front look wrong, the white boxes should touch the sides of blue box (both have very wide lens):
Looking through (very wide lens), looks wrong, white box should touch blue box and blue box should touch purple box:
So I think I'm calculating the various cameras wrong, although the result seems almost "close enough".
Here's the code that returns the vertical FOV, horizontal HFOV and aspect ratio, which are then used to configure the cameras and helpers:
// BLUE camera fov, based on physical camera settings (sensor dimensions and focal length)
var getFOVFrame = function() {
var fov = 2 * Math.atan( sensor_height / ( focal_length * 2 ) ) * ( 180 / Math.PI );
return fov;
}
var getHFOVFrame = function() {
return getFOVFrame() * getAspectFrame();
}
// PURPLE screen fov, should be able to contain the frame
var getFOVScreen = function() {
var fov = getFOVFrame();
var hfov = fov * getAspectScreen();
if (hfov < getHFOVFrame()) {
hfov = getHFOVFrame();
fov = hfov / getAspectScreen();
}
return fov;
}
var getHFOVScreen = function() {
return getFOVScreen() * getAspectScreen();
}
// WHITE crop area fov, should fit inside blue frame camera
var getFOVMonitor = function() {
var fov = getFOVFrame();
var hfov = fov * getAspectMonitor();
if (hfov > getHFOVFrame()) {
hfov = getHFOVFrame();
fov = hfov / getAspectMonitor();
}
return fov;
}
var getHFOVMonitor = function() {
return getFOVMonitor() * getAspectMonitor();
}
var getAspectScreen = function() {
return screen_width / screen_height;
}
var getAspectFrame = function() {
return sensor_width / sensor_height;
}
var getAspectMonitor = function() {
return monitor_aspect;
}
Why does this produce incorrect results when using large FOV / wide lenses? getFOVScreen and especially getFOVMonitor are the suspects.
Your equation var hfov = fov * getAspectScreen(); is not correct.
The relationship between the vertical FOV (vFOV) and the horizontal FOV (hFOV) are given by the following equations:
hFOV = 2 * Math.atan( Math.tan( vFOV / 2 ) * aspectRatio );
and likewise,
vFOV = 2 * Math.atan( Math.tan( hFOV / 2 ) / aspectRatio );
In these equations, vFOV and hFOV are in radians; aspectRatio = width / height.
In three.js, the PerspectiveCamera.fov is the vertical one, and is in degrees.
three.js r.59
Related
I want to update hud positon form 3d position to 2d when mouse moving. Since it may have a large number of 3d objects to project to the screen position, I meet a performance problem.
Are there any way to accelerate calculations? The following is how I calculate 3d object position on 2d screen.
function toScreenPosition(obj) {
var vector = new THREE.Vector3();
//calculate screen half size
var widthHalf = 0.5 * renderer.context.canvas.width;
var heightHalf = 0.5 * renderer.context.canvas.height;
//get 3d object position
obj.updateMatrixWorld();
vector.setFromMatrixPosition(obj.matrixWorld);
vector.project(this.camera);
//get 2d position on screen
vector.x = (vector.x * widthHalf) + widthHalf;
vector.y = -(vector.y * heightHalf) + heightHalf;
return {
x: vector.x,
y: vector.y
};
}
Rather than repositioning your HUD in world space every time your camera moves, add your HUD object(s) to your camera object, and position them only once. Then, when your camera moves, your HUD moves along with it, because the camera's transformation is cascaded to it's children.
yourCamera.add(yourHUD);
yourHUD.position.z = 10;
Note that doing it this way (or even positioning it the way you were) may allow scene objects to clip through your HUD geometry, or even appear between your HUD and the camera, obscuring the HUD. If that's what you want, great! If not, you could move your HUD to a second render pass, allowing it to remain "on top."
First, here is an example of your function rewritten for (almost) optimal performance as written in the comments above, the renderloop is obviously just an example to illustrate where to do which calls:
var width = renderer.context.canvas.width;
var height = renderer.context.canvas.height;
// has to be called whenever the canvas-size changes
function onCanvasResize() {
width = renderer.context.canvas.width;
height = renderer.context.canvas.height;
});
var projMatrix = new THREE.Matrix4();
// renderloop-function, called per animation-frame
function render() {
// just needed once per frame (even better would be
// once per camera-movement)
projMatrix.multiplyMatrices(
camera.projectionMatrix,
projMatrix.getInverse(camera.matrixWorld)
);
hudObjects.forEach(function(obj) {
toScreenPosition(obj, projMatrix);
});
}
// wrapped in IIFE to store the local vector-variable (this pattern
// is used everywhere in three.js)
var toScreenPosition = (function() {
var vector = new THREE.Vector3();
return function __toScreenPosition(obj, projectionMatrix) {
// this could potentially be left away, but isn't too
// expensive as there are 'needsUpdate'-checks in place
obj.updateMatrixWorld();
vector.setFromMatrixPosition(obj.matrixWorld);
vector.applyMatrix4(projectionMatrix);
vector.x = (vector.x + 1) * width / 2;
vector.y = (1 - vector.y) * height / 2;
// might want to consider returning a Vector3-instance
// instead, depends on how the result is used
return {x: vector.x, y: vector.y};
}
}) ();
But, considering you want to render a HUD, it would be better to do that independently of the main-scene, making all of the above computations obsolete and also allowing you to choose a different coordinate-system for sizing and positioning of HUD-elements.
I have an example for this here: https://codepen.io/usefulthink/pen/ZKPvPB. There I used an orthographic camera and a seperate scene to render HUD-Elements on top of the 3d-scene. No extra computations required. Plus I can specify the size and position of HUD-elements conveniently in pixel-units (The same would work using a perspective camera, only requires a bit more trigonometry to get it right).
I need to convert the position and rotation on a 3d object to screen position and rotation. I can convert the position easily but not the rotation. I've attempted to convert the rotation of the camera but it does not match up.
Attached is an example plunkr & conversion code.
The white facebook button should line up with the red plane.
https://plnkr.co/edit/0MOKrc1lc2Bqw1MMZnZV?p=preview
function toScreenPosition(position, camera, width, height) {
var p = new THREE.Vector3(position.x, position.y, position.z);
var vector = p.project(camera);
vector.x = (vector.x + 1) / 2 * width;
vector.y = -(vector.y - 1) / 2 * height;
return vector;
}
function updateScreenElements() {
var btn = document.querySelector('#btn-share')
var pos = plane.getWorldPosition();
var vec = toScreenPosition(pos, camera, canvas.width, canvas.height);
var translate = "translate3d("+vec.x+"px,"+vec.y+"px,"+vec.z+"px)";
var euler = camera.getWorldRotation();
var rotate = "rotateX("+euler.x+"rad)"+
" rotateY("+(euler.y)+"rad)"+
" rotateY("+(euler.z)+"rad)";
btn.style.transform= translate+ " "+rotate;
}
... And a screenshot of the issue.
I would highly recommend not trying to match this to the camera space, but instead to apply the image as a texture map to the red plane, and then use a raycast to see whether a click goes over the plane. You'll save yourself headache in translating and rotating and then hiding the symbol when it's behind the cube, etc
check out the THREEjs examples to see how to use the Raycaster. It's a lot more flexible and easier than trying to do rotations and matching. Then whatever the 'btn' onclick function is, you just call when you detect a raycast collision with the plane
This could be the worse question ever asked however that would be a cool achievement.
I have created a 3D world made of cubes that are 1x1x1 (think Minecraft), all the maths works great etc. However 1x1x1 nearly fills the whole screen (viewable area)
Is there a way I can change the ViewPort or something so that 1x1x1 is half the size it currently is?
Code for setting up camera
float aspectRatio = Gdx.graphics.getWidth() / Gdx.graphics.getHeight();
camera = new PerspectiveCamera(67, 1.0f * aspectRatio, 1.0f);
camera.near = 0.1f; // 0.5 //todo find out what this is again
camera.far = 1000;
fps = new ControlsController(camera , this, stage);
I am using the FirstPersonCameraController and PerspectiveCamera to try and make a first person game
I guess the problem is:
camera = new PerspectiveCamera(67, 1.0f * aspectRatio, 1.0f);
An standard initialization of your camera could be (based on this tutorial):
camera = new PerspectiveCamera(67, Gdx.graphics.getWidth(), Gdx.graphics.getHeight());
// ...
Note how the width and height of the camera is nearly (if not the same) of the width and height of the native gdx window dimension. In your case you set this size to 1 (the same size of your mesh). Try with a bigger viewport dimension to allow your mesh be smaller (in perspective), something like:
/** Not too sure since is a perspective view, but play with this values **/
float multiplier = 2; // <- to allow your mesh be a fraction
// of the size of the viewport of the camera
camera = new PerspectiveCamera(67, multiplier * aspectRatio, multiplier );
Please could someone confirm that the following "supposed constraint" is correct?...
In order to render a three.js orthographic camera to a viewport (and to avoid distortion) the camera's frustum left,right,bottom and top planes must define a frontal frustum face (ocWidth, ocHeight) whose aspect ratio (width/height) is the same as the aspect ratio of the viewport?
In the following example the camera width and height are set first and then the viewport height is constrained by the desired viewport width and the given camera aspect ratio. (An alternative approach would be to set the viewport width and height first and then constrain the camera height to the desired camera width and the given viewport aspect ratio.)
//Orthographic Camera
ocWidth = 99000; //... World Units
ocHeight = 33000; //... World Units
var myCamera = new THREE.OrthographicCamera(
ocWidth / - 2, ocWidth / 2,
ocHeight / 2, ocHeight / - 2,
NEAR = 1, FAR = 1000 );
oc_aspect_ratio = ocWidth / ocHeight;
//Viewport
vp_aspect_ratio = oc_aspect_ratio;
vpXwidth = 800; //... pixels
vpYheight = vpXwidth /vp_aspect_ratio; //... pixels, to ensure no distortion
vpXmin = -vpXwidth /2; vpXmax = vpXwidth /2; //... pixels
vpYmin = -vpYheight /2; vpYmax = vpYheight /2; //... pixels
myRenderer.setViewport( vpXmin, vpYmin, vpXwidth, vpYheight );
Thus (in general) the width and height of the RENDERER are irrelevant as far as the orthographic camera is concerned (The exception is when the effective viewport fills the entire renderer, which is the default if no viewport is explicitly defined. In this case the renderer aspect ratio must match the camera aspect ratio).
I have studied
this documentation
this example
this SO question
which are all helpful but do not explicitly confirm the supposed constraint.
If you are rendering your scene with an orthographic camera, and you wish to prevent distortion of the rendered scene, you need to set your viewport aspect ratio to match the aspect ratio of the camera's frustum.
I am newbie to 3D programming, I did started to explore the 3D world from WebGL with Three.JS.
I want to predetermine object size while I change the camera.position.z and object's "Z" position.
For example:
i have a cube mesh at size of 100x100x100.
cube = new THREE.Mesh(
new THREE.CubeGeometry(100, 100, 100, 1,1,1, materials),
new THREE.MeshFaceMaterial()
);
and cam with aspect ratio of 1.8311874
camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera( 45, aspect_ratio, 1, 30000 );
I want to know size (2D width & height) of that cube object on screen when,
camera.position.z = 750;
cube.position.z = 500;
Is there is any way to find it/predetermine it?
You can compute the visible height for a given distance from the camera using the formulas explained in Three.js - Width of view.
var vFOV = camera.fov * Math.PI / 180; // convert vertical fov to radians
var height = 2 * Math.tan( vFOV / 2 ) * dist; // visible height
In your case the camera FOV is 45 degrees, so
vFOV = PI/4.
(Note: in three.js the camera field-of-view FOV is the vertical one, not the horizontal one.)
The distance from the camera to the front face (important!) of the cube is 750 - 500 - 50 = 200. Therefore, the visible height in your case is
height = 2 * tan( PI/8 ) * 200 = 165.69.
Since the front face of the cube is 100 x 100, the fraction of the visible height represented by the cube is
fraction = 100 / 165.69 = 0.60.
So if you know the canvas height in pixels, then the height of the cube in pixels is 0.60 times that value.
The link I provided shows how to compute the visible width, so you can do that calculation in a similar fashion if you need it.