/3/ - 3DCG

Isn't the focal length more or less irrelevant? What counts is the distance between camera and object or am I wrong?

>>713320
not him but it definitely makes a huge difference anon.

>>713324
That's the distance of the camera though. You could make all these photos with 24mm and crop the image accordingly

>>713320
>Isn't the focal length more or less irrelevant
Nope

>>713328
Why?

>>713329
So for example. Long lenses flatten perspective and make faces prettier. Short lenses widen perspective.
Another example when you zoom in with a scope in a shooter game you’re actually changing the focal length of the camera making it longer. This is true of the newer titles using proper cameras

I don’t think this has anything to do with sculpting though

>>713326
>>713320
so this is the power of the /3/ industry professionals

>>713326
Why are people who don't know crap so full of themselves?
>You could make all these photos with 24mm and crop the image accordingly
Okay, you don't know anything about lenses. It's nothing to be ashamed of nobody was born knowing that and even experts keep learning. So what makes you say something so incredibly wrong when you clearly don't know anything? Are you trying to virtue signal your (lack of) intelligence?
Please, if anything grab a book on film making or photography. So I don't have to read a post that stupid the next time someone talks about focal length.

>>713341
Grab a wide angle lens. Get far from the subject. Take photo. Crop photo around the subject. You have a photo now which looks as if taken with a tele lens.

The focal length determines angle of view. The look is determined by perspective, which is a function of distance.

Don't believe me? Find a camera and try it out.

>>713349
But anon, that it would mean rendering a large portion of the screen only to throw it away, it would also mean the cropped version has less resolution.

>>713349
Fucking idiot.
Not only is there lens distortion when you go tele/wide, the whole perceived depth of the image gets compressed by tele lenses.
That's why the more tele you go the bigger the background looks and the opposite with wide angle lenses.

>>713341
>Why are people who don't know crap so full of themselves?
Has literally always been that way

>>713359
>the whole perceived depth of the image gets compressed by tele lenses.
That's because you have to be further away. In my claim that focal length has intrinsically nothing to do with how a subject looks, I assumed that lens distortion is removed in post.
Sure effectively focal length has an impact because it forces you to be a certain distance away from the subject in order to fill the frame nicely and get a nice resolution for it, but you can't say "a portrait taken with a 7mm lens looks better than one taken with 24mm" because you can just stay the same distance away from the subject, take the photo with the 24mm, remove the distortion in post and crop the image.
Try it, it's basic maths/physics
>>713341
>Why are people who don't know crap so full of themselves?
Ask yourself that.

>>713361
>it's basic maths/physics
which you clearly know nothing about

>>713361
To clarify, I don't mean that different focal lengths are useless. They definitely are useful for depth of field, light amount, resolution of a subject at a given distance, lens distortion etc., but the perspective distortion of a subject as shown in >>713324
ONLY depends on the distance from the subject.

>>713363
So you think you can look around corners because you use a different lens? Write a physics paper about it, you'll be famous

>>713357
Yeah, that's true. But it doesn't change the fact that perspective is what makes the look, not focal length.

In fact, cropping a wide angle image to mimic a longer focal length is a common trick where one has enough resolution to work with. I've done it with 4x5 film scans.

For you arrogant, ignorant retards, I made a quick demo render

>>713371
The difference is that one is less noisy than the other.
Fuck Blender.
/thread

>>713371
>p-please respond

>>713372
>>713373
Nice factual and relevant response, brainlets

>>713374
Now do the same shit with 20mm vs 120mm and using an actual, PHYSICAL background instead of a HDR map, you gaslighting faggot.

>>713375
Another bullshit-dispelling anon here. Read this, and if you still doubt it, try it for yourself.

>>713389
aaand he chickens out. lmao

>>713375
Is that physical enough, you dense motherfucker? (I rendered the 20mm one at 600% resolution to keep the details when cropping, so that took a while on my cheapo processor)

>>713394
>>713395
If your simple mind still cannot fathom this, maybe try it yourself or draw yourself a top down picture of how the camera rays hit the subject/background with different objective openings. Be careful not to shove the crayons too deep into your nose though you absolute mong.

>>713324
>>713328
>>713340
>>713341
>>713359
>>713360
>>713363
>>713372
>>713373
>>713375
>>713394
Rekt

>>713405
lol. The legend goes that he remains silent to this day.

>>713395
Can somebody try this with an actual camera?

>>713583
No, fuck you.

>>713583
No because with a real camera you would notice the massive drop in resolution

>>713591
Yeah this isn't about the resolution though.

>>713602
There won't be a different result. But you don't even need a camera. Use your eyes. Pick a cube-like object and hold it near your eyes, then far away. Notice the changes in perspective. Your eyes' focal length hasn't changed much (besides focusing, etc.), it's just the distance to the object that changes. With camera lenses it's the same. Focal length determines the angle of view and therefore how much of the scene appears on the film/sensor frame. Wide angle lenses allow for much more of the scene to be projected, with makes everything appear smaller; so, to fill the frame with a subject, you get closer, and that's what causes the change in appearance. And you do the opposite with long lenses, with reduce the angle of vision, forcing you to move farther, which "flattens" the object. You might remain stationary in both cases, changing only the focal length, and the only difference would be in how much you have projected onto the picture frame, not in how things appear regarding perspective.

>>713338
>So for example.
>>713341
>Okay,

>>713338
>This is true of the newer titles using proper cameras
So how do you suppose it was done in the "older titles"? Do you think they invented curve based Ray casting or some shit for them, making it much slower, more complicated than the ultra simple straight line triangle method?