POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.newusers : stupid bounding question : Re: stupid bounding question Server Time
4 Nov 2024 21:21:30 EST (-0500)
  Re: stupid bounding question  
From: Mark M  Wilson
Date: 27 Oct 2002 17:51:59
Message: <3DBC7CF3.F4945E6F@att.net>
"Mark M. Wilson" wrote:

> Christopher James Huff wrote:
>
> > In article <3DB881C1.14E3FDA5@att.net>, LibraryMan <mrm### [at] attnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can a camera declaration have a bounded_by statement in it?
> > > Duh... (kind of related to earlier posting called "something holding up
> > > the works")
> >
> > No. What would it do? The camera isn't visible, nothing is ever tested
> > against it, so bounding it would be rather useless.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
> > POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> > http://tag.povray.org/
>
> Well, I had run some renderings which I thought were taking too long, and
> the statistics from them indicated that an inordinately high percentage of
> rays were being tested against objects that weren't even in the camera's
> view.  One of the responses I got on the "something holding up the works"
> thread was that the autobounding might not be what I needed to use for the
> small test renderings on limited areas of my scene.  At least, that's what I
> thought I understood from the response.
>
> So what I'm 'after' is a way to confine the rays to a particular area of my
> scene-- again, only temporarily, and for testing purposes.   I need to read
> the docs about bounding a little more, it looks like...
> --Mark ("Library Man")

BTW, it was Johannes Dahlstrom's (sp.?) response to which I refer.
--MMW


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.