"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> | If you want to get rid of the circular confinement do this:
> |
> | Render your image with double angle and in double resolution
> | and use these command line settings:
> | +sc0.25 +sr0.25 +ec0.75 +er0.75
>
> That's simply a image formatting thing, nothing to do with the
> ray trace itself anyway.

I completely disagree. My example was just meant to show that the mapping
type in itself can indeed produce images without the circular confinement.
The actual fix will be much more simple.

> So the actual fix that could work is to somehow expand the
> partial render to fit the full resolution by predicting a
> field of view.

That would be crazy. Don't tell me a completely new method is needed to
obtain result that are completely similar except for some black pixels in
the corners. I'm sure that removing the circular confinement will be really
easy; probably it'll be about removing some code rather than adding some.
Making it optional will require a bit more work probably but I'm sure that
would be rather easy too.

> If wanting a complete 360 degree field shown as rectangular
> that requires greater than 360 degree field...
> how can that be done then?

Since when has angles greater than 360 degrees been a problem? Read the
documentation.

> It would have limitations anyhow.

Exactly what is that statement based on? Facts? I don't think so.
Indications? I don't see any. To me it is obvious that it would actually
have no limitations at all. It even works perfectly with the clumsy method I
provided.

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated August 7)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message