<![CDATA[SoliForum - 3D Printing Community — Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/topic/938/spherical-lithophane-geometry-which-is-best/ Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:36:06 +0000 PunBB <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8512/#p8512 Owen, thanks.  For whatever reason, I completely missed that.  I think maybe I was playing with the old version and didn't notice it on the new one.  Good stuff!

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:36:06 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8512/#p8512 <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8503/#p8503 jooshs wrote:

Another great option I would love is to control specifically how far the image stretches vertically and horizontally on the cylinders.

Do you have version 3? It DOES have that option. The Options menu has a "Photo Position On Cylinder" item. I think that does what you want it to do, if it doesn't let me know.

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:18:30 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8503/#p8503 <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8502/#p8502 Owen, I didn't know you we're on here as well. Another great option I would love is to control specifically how far the image stretches vertically and horizontally on the cylinders.  Meaning it would be great to select an option that wraps the image all the way around the cylinder or leaves a space on top or bottom.  I am working on a really cool project with the photo2mesh. The sphere would be even better for what I'm doing. The invert option of the new idea you have would work great. Also, I would love to see a version of the program that allows 0 base heights. Just some more ideas to throw around, but love the program and thanks!

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:15:02 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8502/#p8502 <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8498/#p8498 cmetzel wrote:

I think the distortion from the right hand option would change the picture by too large a degree.

It just came to mind that the distortion would be the same. I'm not yet talking about the position of the bumps, but whether they exit from the surface in a horizontal direction or a direction perpendicular to the sphere's surface.

There are many mappings from flat to spherical, but I'm not yet thinking about those in this thread.

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:27:30 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8498/#p8498 <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8496/#p8496 cmetzel wrote:

Think funhouse mirror.

Actually funhouse mirror could be an option! Good idea!

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:06:46 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8496/#p8496 <![CDATA[Re: Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8492/#p8492 I think for strictly viewing a lithophane that the left hand option would be better.  I think the distortion from the right hand option would change the picture by too large a degree.  Think funhouse mirror.

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:10:01 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8492/#p8492 <![CDATA[Spherical Lithophane Geometry, which is best...?]]> https://www.soliforum.com/post/8485/#p8485 PhotoToMesh already does flat and cylindrical lithophanes, and in the future I'd like it to do spherical ones.

My question is whether it is better to vary the thickness of the surface in a horizontal direction (as PhotoToMesh does now with cylinders) or by pushing the surface away from the center of the sphere, a bit like mountains on the earth's surface. This diagram may make the question clearer:

http://www.ransen.com/PhotoToMesh/Spher … e-Geom.htm

The answer is not immediately obvious because of the distortions that flat photos on spherical surfaces suffer.

All suggestions welcome!

]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:43:22 +0000 https://www.soliforum.com/post/8485/#p8485