Ken wrote:
> 
> I like this methodology much better than trying to incorporate
> the function inside Pov itself. It can't help but reduce render
> times, scene complexity, and parsing times. Two thumbs up !
> 
> Only one question must be asked - what is the processing
> time per batch and does it presume sequentially ordered
> images of the current Pov clocked output type ?

Well, every time I start at the code (homesite 4.0 makes for a neat c
editor for djgpp btw) it becomes more functional. But no, it processes
file in date/time order, just like a dir. You can, however, use the -in
arg to read in a file list of course. And make the files listed there
sequential. 

One thing -- For most things, sequence doesn't really matter. I don't
think. I was considering perhaps adding a -time function which would
imprint a film like frame/timecode on the bottom. Have to teach it about
sequencing then of course.


As far as speed. It's not the fastest thing in the world. But it's ok,
unless you use the -texel option. That slugs. The texeling isn't
antialiased either, as you might notice, but... i'd assume for most
animation projects that all your frames are the same size, so I didn't
put too much effort into the code. :)

hmm...

-- 
Lewis A. Sellers: writer and contract Multimedia Website Developer
mailto:lse### [at] usitnet (The Fourth Millennium Foundation)
http://www.public.usit.net/lsellers/ & http://www.intrafoundation.com
http://brain-of-pooh.tech-soft.com/users/critters/bios/sellers_lewis.html

You can bug the living bejesus out of me live on ICQ @ 491461
(If I don't get back to you within a month, I'm out of prozac in some
dark corner somewhere screaming things quite unintelligable but -- most
curiously -- thick with a sumerian accent.)

"The comedy is over" -i pagliacci

Post a reply to this message