I thought I would make this a new thread, since it had nothing to do with
"anonymity" at this point, and maybe we (I) need some clarification on the
detailed views requirement.

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:412db26c$1@news.povray.org...

> news:412cfd92$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Then you're judged poorly on the technical end-of-the-stick, I suppose.
> I'm
> > still in shock over producing a 1280x960 "zoom-in".  If the entire image
> > were rendered at that resolution, it would be 12,800x9,600 (at least) or
> > about 123 megapixels.  Zazzle wouldn't even have a poster size large
> enough.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your calculation. You can zoom in at 1280x960
> whatever the future printable size, it just has to make sense. The zoom-in
> is there to make sure that the picture don't turn into a big, low-detail
> disappointment if it has to be printed (for instance if it was shown in a
> magazine). Just choose upon a theoretical size for rendering (say 6400 x
> 4800) and extract the zones. The zoom-in is actually a compromise: while
> POV-Ray users typically render for screen only, 3D artists creating stills
> for the print media (film posters, book covers etc.) have to render in
large
> sizes, and other challenges reflect this. See for instance
> http://www.cgnetworks.com/challenge/machineflesh/instructions.php where
the
> guidelines consider a 2700 x 3600 image as a good starting point, or the
DAZ
> calendar contest, which has similar requirements (12 x 12' at 300 dpi).
>

Quoting the rules (groan):
"The image submitted has to be at least 1280 pixels wide or 960 pixels high,
and containing at least 1,228,800 pixels in total"
and
"The minimum size for each of the detail views is the same as for the main
render ; the area of each detail view must not be larger than 1/100 of the
main image area (meaning no more than 1/10 the width and 1/10 the height)."

To me, that means making two 1280x960* (at least) detail views which are no
more than 1/100 of the picture size.  I realize that we don't have to do a
12,800 x 9,600 render, but that much zoom/detail still surprises me since
I've never heard of anyone creating a render that large (right about now is
when someone claims to have reached gigapixel status ;-) ).

Have I interpreted that (in)correctly?

*A person could make a render without a 4x3 aspect ratio, but they're still
expected to meet the same requirement, and differring aspect ratios could
mean even larger detail views (e.g. a 720x960 picture would meet the size
requirement, but would not have enough overall pixels, so in reality, any
picture must be at least 1280 x 960, and 960 x 1280 may not be wide enough).

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com


-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com