Yes Ok, no confused. Many thanks for your help. Yes I was thinking that I
was doing the square right.
But, to calculate the pixel co-ordinates from the relative co-ordinates,
Thorsten said that I have to multiply 1280*0.44=563 (+sc0.58 +ec0.75 +sr0.44
+er0.61 +w6400 +h4800). Well, now is it right?:

1280*0.44= 563'2 // X-Position (Horizontal)
1280*0.75= 960 // Y-Position (Vertical)
960*0.61= 585'6 // X-Position (Horizontal)
960*0.58= 556'8 // Y-Position (Vertical)

Best regards,
Oleguer






news:web.416a80fcf8f8ca6167c1c3ff0@news.povray.org...
> Oleguer wrote:
> > Yes, Ok I had read this web page. Now I used this code "+SR0.44 +ER0.61
> > +SC0.58 +EC0.75". The main picture is in 1280x960.
> > 1280/25= 51'2 and 960/25= 38'4.
> > How can I now if my square is 51'2 width and 38'4 height? Because I
supose
> > that if the square is biger than 51'1x38'4 I can't upload it.
> >
> > How do you know the other number that appear on the exemple? (
+EC0.640625
> > and +ER0.455469).
>
> You're required to render 1/25 of the area of your original image;
> that means that the difference between your +sc/+ec and +sr/+er has to
> be less than, or equal to, 0.2.  That 0.2 is simply 1/5, which in turn
> stems from the 1/25 area requirement: 1/5*1/5 for the width and height
> respectively gives you an area that is 1/25 of the original).  That's
> where the other numbers come from.
>
> Hint: you can 'try out' your detail view by creating in your image
> editor a movable square (or a crop window) with size 256x192.
> Anything you see of your main image _through this rectangle_ is
> suitable (once rendered at proper resolution) as your detail image(s).
>
> Please notice that your 1280/25 calculation is kind of "wrong" (it
> would give you an area that is 625th of the main image, which is 25
> times smaller than required; it's OK by the rules, but it seems to me
> that this is not what you're attempting! :))
>
> The +sc/+ec/+sr/+er you give yield:
> ec - sc = 0.75 - 0.58 = 0.17, which is less than 0.2, therefore ok.
> er - sr = 0.61 - 0.44 = 0.17, which is less than 0.2, therefore ok.
> This would give you a detail image whose area is 0.17*0.17 = 0.0289 <
0.04,
> so everything's fine!  (0.04 = 1/25)
>
> To render the detail view with POV-Ray you would say
>
> +sc0.58 +ec0.75 +sr0.44 +er0.61 +w6400 +h4800
>
> and the resulting detail image would have pixel dimensions 1088x816
> after the margins are cropped out, which is just enough as required by
> the rules ("The detail views have to be at least 800 pixels wide and
> high").  Notice that you'd probably want to have +a on too, because
> you're not going to scale this image down.
>
> It seems to me you have actually done all of this, or at least
> considered it, so are you still having a problem?  If you're seeing
> the details you WANT in your detail images, and haven't made a typo in
> posting your parameters, then everything should be OK.
>
> DON'T LET ME GET YOU CONFUSED NOW!  You're doing fine, here's just how
> you would render the same detail image in 1280x960.
>
> 1280/0.17 = 7529,411
> 960/0.17 = 5647,059
> --> +sc0.58 +ec0.75 +sr0.44 +er0.61 +w7530 +h5648
>
> --
> jussi.kantola
>
>