Le 18/07/2013 02:34, Alex Stewart a écrit :
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:49:04 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 16/07/2013 17:26, Jeff nous fit lire :
>>> Sure would be nice if there were a way for POV-Ray to encode a lot of
>>> the critical settings (command line quality/AA/etc. options) as well as
>>> possibly camera/lookat and all light vector locations, clock values
>>> into the JPG/PNG image similar to the way the digital cameras put all
>>> the ISO/focus/etc info tagged in there (even using simple metatags
>>> would be nice).  This would allow me to keep track of some limited link
>>> to at least a rudimentary amount of the settings used to generate an
>>> image many months later amid so many test renders...
> [...]
>> The problem is that metadata are limited, on some format, to only 4
>> lines of exactly 80 characters (ascii only). there is no place for all
>> you have requested.
> 
> (a) That is not true of either PNG or JPG files.  There is no reason this 
> information could not be included in those file formats.
> 
> (b) I personally don't care about other archaic image file formats that 
> have those sorts of comment limitations, but even if for some reason other 
> folks do, you can pack a lot of information into 320 characters.

It's not 320 characters. It's 4 lines of 80 (and no, that's not the same
thing). Btw, it's only 7 bits-ascii.(indeed, only 32-126, not even sure
about 127)

>  I 
> suspect simply listing the source filename and non-default command-line 
> options needed to reproduce the output would probably fit easily in that 
> space for all but a few extreme cases, so even that's not really a valid 
> reason not to do it..
> 
> FWIW, I agree with Jeff that including render settings information in the 
> output would be very useful, and I see no reason it couldn't be included, 
> at the very least, in PNG/JPG files, and possibly others.

Please provide an *exhaustive* list of render settings that would be
very useful.

But 3.7 is feature-frozen, so it won't happen in that release.

Do you want human readable or machine readable too ? (some format have
metadata in tagged forms)


-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message