scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Sure 
> it's possible, but a sensible default behaviour would make it easier...

  And what, in your opinion, should the "sensible default behavior" be
if the author wanted, for example, for his image to be rendered in a very
widescreen format like, let's say, 2.4:1 (typical movie aspect ratio), and
this because he composed his image so that it will work the best with that
aspect ratio?

  I somehow get the feeling that you are making the assumption that all
scenes are designed for a 4:3 aspect ratio because that's the default,
and that you are arguing what happens when you want to render it for a
16:9 (or sometimes 16:10) monitor.

  However, often when an author uses a very different aspect ratio, eg.
a very widescreen one, or perhaps the other extreme, a square one (or
even one which is taller than wide, for artistic composition purposes)
it's because he really intends for the image to be rendered with that
aspect ratio. Imagine that someone composes a scene which has an aspect
ratio of 1:2 (twice as tall as wide), eg. for a postcard. He *definitely*
composed the scene for that precise aspect ratio, not anything else.

  So what would be, in your opinion, the "sensible default behavior"
when you then try to render that 1:2 image into a 16:9 one? Maybe render
a 16:9 part in the middle of the original 1:2 image?

  I'm sorry, but I just disagree with you. The original image composition
should be preferred over anything else, unless the author *specifically*
allows other aspect ratios to be used (which he can in the current POV-Ray).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message