Warp wrote:
> 
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> : I was just talking about changing the default behaviour.
> 
>   To what?
>   Modify the x-vector of the camera to match the aspect ratio? Or would it
> be better to modify the up-vector? Or perhaps modify both half-way? Or perhaps
> they should be modified weighting by the aspect ratio (ie. if the image is
> wider than taller, then the x-vector is modified proportionally more than
> the up-vector)?

There were some arbitrary decisions made a long time ago to have the
right-vector default to be 4/3 units in length while all the other ones
have unit lengths.  To me it would seem logical to have it follow the
image dimensions.  There's no need to start modifying the up, direction,
or sky vector.

>   I suppose you read my other article where I explained why it's not so
> trivial as you may think.

I never said it was trivial - I only said it would be more intuitive to
the people using it.  And, yes, i did read your other post.  I think
your argument about "always getting the intended image" doesn't hold
up.  It assumes you want a 4:3 image to begin with.  I'm pretty sure
that any one who makes a 300x300 render would have built his or her
scene to render properly with a 1:1 aspect ratio.

>   (It's trivial to implement, but what it's not trivial is deciding which is
> the correct behaviour. It also introduces some problems, as I described.)

And having the default aspect ratio be 4:3 instead of relative to the
image dimensions does not introduce problems?  We see so many newbies
ask "why is my image squashed?" that there's a faq question dealing with
it.

The default aspect ratio is set to 4:3 because it was assumed by the
coders that (a) all monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, (b) all images
will be displayed on such monitors and (c) everyone will want
full-screen images.  My suggestion makes only one assumption:  pixels
are square.

I was just suggesting that, IMHO, it would be more intuitive (for the
newbies at least) to have the default behaviour or the camera settings
follow the image dimensions and allow someone working with an image size
where the pixels are not square or wanting to produce a specific effect
be able to do so rather than having everyone who wants to trace an image
that does not have 4:3 dimensions remember to change the length of the
right (or up) vector.  That is all.

Let's face it, having the aspect ratio be automatically computed rather
than fixed would not matter as most images are made at 4:3 resolutions,
but it would simplify the work for those who work with other image
sizes.

How often do you render non 4:3 images using square pixels?
How often do you render 4:3 images using non square pixels?

Maybe a good compromise would be to have it settable on the command-line
(sorry Bill!) or in the .ini file.  Therefore someone who deals mainly
with non 4:3 media such as CD artwork, windows icons or 18"x24" posters,
for example) could "set it and forget it".

-- 
Francois Labreque | Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a snooze
    flabreque     | button on a cat who wants breakfast.
        @         |      - Unattributed quote from rec.humor.funny
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message