@ragukokarn
Great idea to do something that is so hard it is nearly impossible - with imprecise tools for the task and also in high resolution.
Oh well. I did try.
Preferred comment/critique type for this content: Any Kind
(I absolutely love the fat pony! It always makes me smile when I see it 😄)
One would assume it would be easier in 3d because of the many ways you can rotate objects and cameras independatly to match the fov perfectly, but it is certainly not as simple as I thought heh. Looking in the viewport is one thing and then the render itself is not 100% physically accurate to all geometry down to the .00x's that are needed for it to work. It was a good practice for sure.
@BadKarma: Thank you! Maybe we shall have some more of those.. I'll add it to the growing list of stuff to do :)
PS: I need to renew a few software licences unexpectedly this month so support need to be split into two parts. First part should be sent and on its way. I'll see how much I have left after I paid all stuff.
@ragukokarn: No worries. Take care of your needs first. :)
@Cynicallia: Aaah I really wanted one after doing this experiment. Sort of fun fact: I had one as a kid and got so frustrated over not being able to make a perfect circle on it, I smashed it into my forehead (yeah.. that is a thing..) and it broke. I am not sure what the moral of that story is. Manage anger, perhaps.
@Trezce: Thank you :) It is not quite accurate but with "squint-eye-vision" and smaller image size it is.. perfect 😉
Noice.
I know it's possible to do this IRL if you can get the viewer to the right vantage point, but I've almost never seen it tried in digital rendering.
(P.S.: Thank you for making the notes actually legible. :p )