>  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.

Yes, that is my assumption for the default behaviour, that the author just 
uses the default aspect ratio without a second thought for anyone else who 
might want to render it.  This is quite typical of the images you see posted 
on this server, which often then people then want to render as a desktop 
wallpaper.

>  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.

Sure, and in that case the author should have to force the aspect ratio in 
his scene file - but it shouldn't be the default behaviour.

>  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).

I see what you're saying, but my point is that in most cases (just look at 
the last 20 or images from p.b.i) the author has not set any specifc aspect 
ratio or any particular scene geometry that wouldn't work with a different 
aspect ratio.  I see it that your example is the exception to the norm, the 
author chooses some carefully calculated aspect ratio and designs his scene 
specifically only to work with that exact aspect ratio.  In which case I see 
that as a silly choice for the default behaviour.

Post a reply to this message