|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:4149f442@news.povray.org...
> In article <4145d55e$1@news.povray.org> , "Jeremy M. Praay"
> <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Someone can correct me (again) if I'm wrong, but the "big" render size
>> would
>> have to be at least 5334x4000 in order to get an 800x800 detail view that
>> was <= 1/25 of the original picture.
>
> You are wrong. The detail image size has to be at least 800 by 800. This
> says nothing about the part in the main image. The rules only require that
> the area in the main image the detail image shows is not more than 1/25 of
> the total main image area. You could pick a 1 by 1 pixel area in the main
> image and render that with a resolution of 800 by 800 easily.
>
I'm not sure that I follow. Either that or you didn't follow me. I think
you're saying that my first estimate of 4800x3600 was closer (obviously
assuming 4:3 aspect ratio for the original image), though a little on the
high side.
To avoid any further misunderstandings, my contention is that by using
+sr/+sc/+er/+ec, we would have to take a 800x800 detail section of an image
that was not less than 4619x3465 (still assuming 4:3 aspect ratio), if it
was rendered in full, in order to get a detail section that was less than or
equal to 1/25 of the entire image. I suppose those dimensions may be
negociable by a pixel for each dimension, depending on how/where things get
rounded.
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
|
|