Aspect Ratio and the Fish Eye

Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
edited December 1969 in New Users

Here is maybe a bit of an odd question.

I'm working on using DAZ to make panels for a web comic. A couple of weeks ago I switched computers. Up until now, by luck, on the new computer, I have mostly worked with square-ish panels or at most portrait or landscape sized. But my most recent page called for two very short, full-page-wide panels. So the aspect ratio was something like 1860x500.

I was working in a scene in Urban sprawl, and using square aspect everything looked as I would expect. But then I changed the AR to 1860x500, and all of a sudden it was like I was looking through a fish-eye lens. Rather than the scene being cropped top and bottom like I would have expected, the computer was showing me the whole scene with extremely exaggerated perspective. So things slightly behind the focal character looked like they were hundreds of feet away, etc. The effect was almost like what you'd see looking reverse-wise through a pair of binoculars (I used to like to do that as a kid).

This effect lasts even if I go off the camera view and into the perspective view, so I don't think it's a camera lens setting. Also, note, I did NOT do anything to the camera settings at all -- I had them on the default, depth of field was off, and so forth. So I don't think that did it either.

I'm pretty sure I have done shots like this before in DAZ and not had the "fish eye" effect. This has only been happening (as far as I can tell) since I switched to my new laptop and started with a fresh DAZ install. I have the feeling that there is an option somewhere, and I checked it or unchecked it 18 months ago when I installed DAZ on my old PC, and I did not remember to do that on this fresh install. If so, however, I cannot remember what option it is.

But I really do NOT want the "lens characteristics" to change when I change the aspect ratio. I mean after all, using a regular camera, I don't get a fish-eye effect by turning the camera sideways to change the aspect ratio of a shot from landscape to portrait. I shouldn't get that when I change it in DAZ either, unless I instruct DAZ to do so with camera lens settings.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to get rid of the fish eye for widescreen shots?

Thanks!

Comments

  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,914
    edited December 1969

    Sounds like maybe the camera settings were changed, reset all your camera properties to default and make sure your AR is set in render settings.

  • Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
    edited December 1969

    The camera settings were not changed. They were all set at the defaults.

    So I really have no idea what is causing this.

  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,914
    edited December 1969

    The only other 2 things I can possibly think of that would cause this:
    accidentally looking through a light instead of a camera
    or
    There is a product I believe that produces a "fish-eyed" lens effect, maybe that was applied if you have it?

  • Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
    edited December 1969

    Here is what I am talking about.

    Default camera with all settings on the defaults: Perspective on, frame width 36, focal length 65, DOF off.

    First shot is square 1:1 AR. 850x850.

    Second shot is what the first shot would look like cropped to a 4:1 aspect ratio in PS. (850x213).

    Third shot is what happens if I change the Render settings to 850x213 in DAZ, without doing anything to change the camera. Notice how much more vertical stuff is included. How much farther back the car looks in the shot. The girl shielding herself also looks farther away. The 1:1 aspect ratio is what the spacing of these objects really looks like (or should look like). The other one is like it was shot with an extreme wide-angle lens.

    I've never noticed this happen before... only since I put DAZ on my new PC. That's why i suspect there is a setting somewhere that I have accidentally left on or off.

    WS.jpg
    850 x 213 - 195K
    Crop.jpg
    850 x 213 - 216K
    SQ1.jpg
    850 x 850 - 665K
  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,914
    edited December 1969

    Try it with perspective off

  • Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
    edited December 1969

    Sadly, that does not work either. First of all, with perspective off, in camera view, I can't rotate the camera. That never happened to me before, so I know I have not worked with perspective off before. Second, that makes everything look out of proportion in the opposite way -- the garbage can looks gigantic and out of scale, for instance. (See below.)

    The only thing that seems to work is if I make the camera focal length = the height of the shot. If I change the FL to be the same # of mm as the height of the render, I get everything back into the proper, non-fish-eyed, perspective. And although I don't mind doing that, I never had to do it before. So I just can't figure out what is going on with this.

    PerspOff.jpg
    850 x 213 - 152K
  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,914
    edited December 1969

    yes, this is very strange. I can't think of anything else that may be causing this :(

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 99,548
    edited December 1969

    Go to the Camera group in Parameters (or the Camera pane) and lower the frame width setting. This is a new feature added to help with precisely this sort of issue.

  • Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
    edited December 1969

    So are you saying this is a new feature that has been added to 4.7 and I just never happened to notice it on the old computer?

    Because the thing that bugs me the most is that it did not do this on the old PC... i.e. up until 2-3 weeks ago.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 99,548
    edited December 1969

    Distortion in very wide aspect ratio images has been a problem for a while - it's to do with the way the frame is calculated, as I recall, and although DS is correct for a standard camera it can be and now has been adjusted to allow a less distorted image for wide aspect ratios.

  • Steven-VSteven-V Posts: 727
    edited December 1969

    Hm, OK. Maybe I just did not have quite such a wide aspect ratio on my earlier images... or maybe I shot them in a more enclosed environment where it would look less distorted.

Sign In or Register to comment.