"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:4141cc3d$1@news.povray.org...
> "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4141c099$1@news.povray.org...
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Maybe I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be, so I just
> wanted
>> to fling this out there too see how far off I really am on this issue.
>>
>> I'm thinking just on render at 6400 x 4800 and then just cropping two
>> separate 800 x 800 detail views.
>>
>> I did a quick preview of my scene (no media, no antialiasing) and it
> appears
>> that bigger image takes more time. Is that true or it it just me??
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
> do you mean to say that the time does not scale linearly with the size? 
> for
> example instead of a 100 pixel image taking 1 second, a 200 pixel image
> taking 2 seconds, a 300 pixel taking 3 seconds it's more like 100:1,
> 200:2.5, and 300:6.25 or something?
>
> i don't know what i'm talking about. just trying to figure out what you're
> talking about ;)

I did a full render (all the switches I wanted) at 1280 x 1024 and it took 
6h 16m 57s to complete
if I do a the same render at 6400 x 4800 and just pick out two detail areas 
and crop to get my detail views. The orginal 6400 x 4800 image would be used 
for the full view version. Would the 6400 x 4800 image take approx 5 times 
as long to render? Again is it me or is this more complicated that it needs 
to be? I'm having some difficulty the BEST way to go about meeting 
submission requirements.

Jim
>
>
>
>