Daz Focal length/ Frame width

[7archangel]

Hi

I have aspirations of making an adult visual novel, but I'm currently stuck on what focal length i should use. I would like to appeal to all devices users, but most of my concerns are how renders would look on android devices. If some can post what you currently like to use I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[osanaiko]

If you are even thinking enough about image composition that focal length is an important decision, then you are much deeper into the aesthetic details than 98%* of indie adult game developers.

In all honesty, I don't know what effect render camera focal length would have that might cause a problem on mobile devices.

That's a cool looking render, if you can nail that look for the rest of your game you will win many fans of your visuals.

(* i made that statistic up on the spot for hyperbolic emphasis yo)

 

[7archangel]

The Aesthetic is definitely what I'm after, and find the most joy in chasing.

For sure, overthinking it its more just wanting to have it look right on mobile screens.

Like I was just wondering what people' s preferred focal lengths were, or if they use frame width.
Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Jumbi]

I don't think the device you are playing on matters much. These give a good general idea of the different focal length choices:





I got these from part two of this

You must be registered to see the links

, if you are curious.

I also agree that the screenshot you provided in the OP looks good.

 

[7archangel]

Appreciate it. I'll definitely use this as reference. Interesting that 40-60mm is what's used for close ups, wondering if I would get similar result using those lens with the Daz camera.

 

[osanaiko]

Appreciate it. I'll definitely use this as reference. Interesting that 40-60mm is what's used for close ups, wondering if I would get similar result using those lens with the Daz camera.

You absolutely will get the same effects, the true 3d raycast rendering technology used by Daz simulates "perfect" lenses perfectly. There's actually option to turn on some chromatic abberation somewhere in the render settings to get a more cinematic/photographic look.

 

[AlternateDreams]

I'm a beginner in this field. I'm interested in this subject, but I'm just starting to add this kind of stuff to my game.
In my case, I like to use a 50mm focal length with a 16:9 DSLR camera, but that's for shooting dialogues/cutscenes in Unreal Engine, I don't render using Daz.
What helped me the most was watching tutorials for amateur filmmakers (how to shoot a scene etc.).
In your case, it's probably more useful to watch tutorials on photography.
I can, however, recommend this video that I found in my notes, which is useful in both photography and filmmaking:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[jamdan]

Appreciate it. I'll definitely use this as reference. Interesting that 40-60mm is what's used for close ups, wondering if I would get similar result using those lens with the Daz camera.

Yeah, 3d cameras work basically the same way real ones do.

There are plenty of tutorials about focal length on youtube too. StudioBinder channel has several videos about composition and a few free Ebooks on their website.

But like someone else said, the fact you're actually considering this stuff means you're already ahead of most AVN devs in terms of composition.

 

[7archangel]

I'm a beginner in this field. I'm interested in this subject, but I'm just starting to add this kind of stuff to my game.
In my case, I like to use a 50mm focal length with a 16:9 DSLR camera, but that's for shooting dialogues/cutscenes in Unreal Engine, I don't render using Daz.
What helped me the most was watching tutorials for amateur filmmakers (how to shoot a scene etc.).
In your case, it's probably more useful to watch tutorials on photography.
I can, however, recommend this video that I found in my notes, which is useful in both photography and filmmaking:

You must be registered to see the links

Welcome, thanks for sharing your progress/ video. Just starting to get back into it myself, so definitely appreciate the discussion,and material thats been given so far.

 

[idTerra]

I've been messing around with the camera settings recently, but I'm neither a photographer nor good at math, so hopefully someone else can explain this better or correct me. Most of this rant is just from randomly browsing wikipedia.
The "Frame Width" camera setting in Daz is the camera's sensor width. The default setting of 36mm equates to a full frame 35mm camera, which has a sensor size of 36mmx24mm. We can change this to imitate, say, an APS-C camera, with a frame width of roughly 24mmx16mm. This "narrows" the area of the resulting image, so to compensate, we reduce the focal length by the same factor, and we'd get the same image (Look up "crop factor" and "equivalent focal length"). Phone camera nowadays have 4:3 sensors, but they're too small to fit full size sensors. So on a Google Pixel 8, for example, the sensor is 9.8mmx7.4mm, but it acts as a "25mm equivalent lens". Anyways, we don't have size restrictions in Daz, so we need only change one parameter or the other. Focal Length or Frame Width.
Here's where I think Daz is messed up. In Daz Studio, in Render Settings, if we increase the width of a render to, for example, 16:9, we get extra pixels on the sides compared to a 3:2 image. This is physically impossible on a real camera. Try it out on your phone's camera app. Take a photo in the 4:3 setting. Take an 1:1 photo in that exact same location. The left and right should be cropped off. Now do a photo wider than 4:3, like 16:9. Compared to the first 4:3 image, this one should be missing pixels on the top and bottom, because getting a wider image from a 4:3 sensor should be cropping, instead of magically generating more pixels on the left and right. So where do these extra pixels come from? I feel like as you increase the width of a render, Daz automatically lowers the focal length to get all these extra pixels without telling you. Here's an extreme example. Full frame 36x24 camera at 70mm focal length (which is almost telephoto) outputting a w i d e image. This feels wrong.
Again, I might be wrong, feel free to explain more or correct me.
tldr: I think Daz fucks with focal length/frame width when rendering anything wider than 3:2?

 

[osanaiko]

This is physically impossible on a real camera.

Perhaps the disconnect here is that you still expect it to work like a a real camera... when it is not.

The whole naming convention for the virtual camera frame/lens stuff in 3d apps is (was) a gesture toward bringing existing filmographers (photo and cinema) into the 3d realm. it's not a automatic consequence of the ray tracing algorithms, just a way of describing a couple of render engine parameters in terms that might spur some connection to old school physical world equipment.

In the extreme wide case you've posted, it could either be considered "magic" pixels added on each side, or an existing larger shot that has been cropped at top and bottom. but it doesn't matter - the render engine just simulates light rays from each pixel in the output image and lets them randomly bounce off virtual object surfaces, summing up the calculated light values to get a final image after many many repeated interations.

 

[anne O'nymous]

This is physically impossible on a real camera.

This is a totally ridiculous claim based on a total lack of understanding about how real camera works.

While it's not usual, because the long history of analogical camera made us depending on the film dimension, it's perfectly possible to get that result with a real camera. It suffice to change the 3:2 lens by a 16:9 one.

If your experience demonstrate that a smartphone do not works in the same way than Daz render engines, it's because a smartphone have one and only one lens. Therefore they are stuck with an unique ratio.

Again, I might be wrong, feel free to explain more or correct me.

It would be too long, and I don't feel like teaching physic, then optic, before having to do a bit of math to explain what passing from 3:2 to 16:9 imply.

tldr: I think Daz fucks with focal length/frame width when rendering anything wider than 3:2?

TL;DR:
Daz Studio render with the right focal and in the asked ratio, without a single issue.

 

[idTerra]

While it's not usual, because the long history of analogical camera made us depending on the film dimension, it's perfectly possible to get that result with a real camera. It suffice to change the 3:2 lens by a 16:9 one.

Yeah, going from 3:2 to 16:9 in Daz strictly increases the width of the image, and in this case lengthens the frame width. It's just that going from, say, 36x24 to 42.67x24 increases the FOV and if we convert back to a 3:2 equivalent the sensor becomes 40.73x27.15 which is a crop factor of 0.88 but that's not reflected in the actual frame width setting.
Anyways, you're right. It's possible to do that on a real world camera.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Yeah, going from 3:2 to 16:9 in Daz strictly increases the width of the image, and in this case lengthens the frame width.

Obviously since it's not like passing from, by example, 16:8 to 4:2. Here the ratio would be the same, just expressed with different values.
But when you pass from 3:2 to 16:9 you totally change the ratio of the image, whatever its effective size. And it happen that the second is wider than the first one.

It's just that going from, say, 36x24 to 42.67x24 increases the FOV and if we convert back to a 3:2 equivalent the sensor becomes 40.73x27.15 which is a crop factor of 0.88 but that's not reflected in the actual frame width setting.

What are you talking about ?

It's a shortcut, but the focal (36x24) and the image ratio (3:2) are two different things, and the size of the image depend on the ratio, not on the focal.