On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Robert Rolf wrote:
> > Ahh, see, they aren't identical pictures, they are 3d-renderings of an
> > identical object, but from different angles.
> 
> So why do you then have to keep the virtual image stationary as
> the box is moved? And isn't the image going to get rather distorted
> as the box is rotated and the edge LEDs get used instead of ones more
> central to the surface planes?

You are totally right and the image will definetely get distorted.
You're looking at a projection of a cube, at an angle, rather than a
cube. It's like the difference between a hologram and a standard photo.

As for why... Well here is my dry-art talk explanation. My concept with
this is that I want to present a situation where it isn't clear what is
more real, the physical object of the cube, or the virtual creation that
is projected onto it. Both will clearly be consistant with physical
reality in some way, the real cube moves when you move it, the virtual
cube will fairly consistantly not move when you move it.

Work comes to worst I put the thing in a multi-axis gyro-type mechanical
setup and put rotary encoders on each axis. Then making the virtual cube
stable is a simple matter of reading the encoders and doing the math.
I'll decide if I think I want to go in that direction once I have a
physical tilt-based model made.

-- 
pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist