Well, the transformation between image and (xd, yd) is linear, so that part's easy. The other transformation between (xd, yd) and (x, y) is non-linear, and looks quite painful.
Since the solution is not radially symmetric, there isn't a solution in terms of r. Hence, I would be tempted to write the terms for (x,y) => (xd, yd) fully in terms of x and y, expanding the powers of r, and then attempt to brute-force a solution. You could try this with open-source computer-algebra software such as Maxima. Another alternative would be to use Newton's method (iterative) to find (x, y) given (xd, yd). This should be fairly easy because you can write the Jacobian of the system symbolically. If I have time, I'll have a go at one or both of the above. What is your time-frame for this? It might take me a week to get around to it, so anyone else should jump in. Jonathan Merritt. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Dan Eicher <d...@trollwerks.org> wrote: > These guys describe a fast preview mode (if that's the problem): > > http://www.vassg.hu/pdf/vass_gg_2003_lo.pdf > > ...not that I understand the math behind it. > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
