Just downloaded Beta4.

I test rendered "trace2.pov" at the size 128x128. That looked odd,
because the preview window didn't became square. Instead it still was
around 160 wide, which meant that it was a gray unused part at the right
side of the window.
The resulting QT-movie became 128x128 though, so this seems more like a
cosmetic problem than a real problem.

First I rendered "trace.pov", which worked as expected. And then I
rendered "trace.pov", but no QT file at all appeared. I tried several
times, but nothing got saved. However, after restarting Pov-ray,
everything worked just fine again.

And now I'll start to click at illogical places again ;-)
Tom "Bad user" Stone

Post a reply to this message

Tom Stone wrote in message <3BAE867C.A00BE79E@telia.com>...
>I test rendered "trace2.pov" at the size 128x128. That looked odd,
>because the preview window didn't became square. Instead it still was
>around 160 wide, which meant that it was a gray unused part at the right
>side of the window.
>The resulting QT-movie became 128x128 though, so this seems more like a
>cosmetic problem than a real problem.


You're using the Mac version, right?  I know that Windows has a minimum size
it will allow a window to be, and I think MacOS has a similar limit.
Consequently, if you render an image smaller than that minimum, the render
will only take up part of the window.  The output file will still be the
specified image size, though.

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message

In article <3BAE867C.A00BE79E@telia.com> , Tom Stone <tom### [at] teliacom>
wrote:

> I test rendered "trace2.pov" at the size 128x128. That looked odd,
> because the preview window didn't became square. Instead it still was
> around 160 wide, which meant that it was a gray unused part at the right
> side of the window.
> The resulting QT-movie became 128x128 though, so this seems more like a
> cosmetic problem than a real problem.

This is the correct behavior, and it is identical to the behavior of 3.1.

Of course it would be nice if the image would be centered in such a case,
but it is so low priority that I never got around to actually implement it.

> First I rendered "trace.pov", which worked as expected. And then I
> rendered "trace.pov", but no QT file at all appeared. I tried several
> times, but nothing got saved. However, after restarting Pov-ray,
> everything worked just fine again.

Hmm, was the QT movie still there when you rendered it the second time?  Did
you accidentally use continue-trace?  What did you do with the first movie
you rendered?  Move it? Delete it?  Leave it in place?

> And now I'll start to click at illogical places again ;-)
> Tom "Bad user" Stone

;-)


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> > The resulting QT-movie became 128x128 though, so this seems more like a
> > cosmetic problem than a real problem.
>
> This is the correct behavior, and it is identical to the behavior of 3.1.
>
> Of course it would be nice if the image would be centered in such a case,
> but it is so low priority that I never got around to actually implement it.

Ah, sorry. I never noticed it before, and since it looked strange, I thought
that I should report it. But since it's only a minor cosmetic detail, there's
no need to change it.

> >but no QT file at all appeared. I tried several
> > times, but nothing got saved. However, after restarting Pov-ray,
> > everything worked just fine again.
>
> Hmm, was the QT movie still there when you rendered it the second time?  Did
> you accidentally use continue-trace?  What did you do with the first movie
> you rendered?  Move it? Delete it?  Leave it in place?

I didn't make a note about it, and I just got back from a tough one-week gig at
a cruise ship (4 shows a day), so I don't remember the details now. But I think
that I just gave the first QT-file another name, and left it in place. I didn't
use continue-trace. But, since my memory is failing me now, don't take this
info too seriously.

Post a reply to this message