Dear Povers,

 Couple of days ago, I re-rendered older scene file on the new Pov3.5 beta
10. It seemed to me the size of the objects in the raytraced image are
rather smaller than the previous render done in older betas.
Would this possibly be related to the position of the camera statements,
which have been (I guess) changed in the beta10 of Pov3.5?

Thanks so much,

Jong

Post a reply to this message

"Jong" <jjk### [at] mmewhaackr> wrote in news:3c562a5a@news.povray.org:

> Couple of days ago, I re-rendered older scene file on the new Pov3.5
> beta 10. It seemed to me the size of the objects in the raytraced image
> are rather smaller than the previous render done in older betas. Would
> this possibly be related to the position of the camera statements,

Probably.  Beta 10 ignores the angle statement unless it is the last 
component in the camera block (this change wasn't documented) and requires 
the up and right vectors to be given when using the orthographic camera.  
The former change is not backward compatible with previous versions of Pov 
and the latter means that orthographic and perspective cameras no longer 
give the same field of view even when all other camera keywords are 
identical.

Post a reply to this message

Coridon Henshaw scribis news:Xns### [at] 204213191226:

> and requires the up and right vectors to be given when using the 
> orthographic camera

I just ran a test to see about this part...
I get no errors/warnings by using an orthographic camera without
setting up and right vectors. And yes, I am using 3.5 b10

camera{orthographic location <0,0,-20>}sphere{0,2 pigment{color rgb 10}}

-- 
Gis poste, Arto.

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226> , che### [at] sympaticoca
(Coridon Henshaw) wrote:

> Beta 10 ignores the angle statement unless it is the last
> component in the camera block (this change wasn't documented) and requires
> the up and right vectors to be given when using the orthographic camera.

Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in
news:3c5670ea@news.povray.org: 

>> Beta 10 ignores the angle statement unless it is the last
>> component in the camera block (this change wasn't documented) and
>> requires the up and right vectors to be given when using the
>> orthographic camera. 
> 
> Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.

Try it yourself.

AngleFirst.pov:

sphere {0,2000 pigment {rgb 1} finish {ambient 1}} camera {location 
<0,0,15000> right x*(image_width/image_height) angle 25 look_at <0,0,0>}

AngleLast.pov:

sphere {0,2000 pigment {rgb 1} finish {ambient 1}} camera {location 
<0,0,15000> right x*(image_width/image_height) look_at <0,0,0> angle 25}

The angle statement in the first example is ignored.  

Orthographic vs. perspective camera:

Perspective.pov

sphere {0,2000 pigment {rgb 1} finish {ambient 1}} camera {location 
<0,0,15000> right x*(image_width/image_height) look_at <0,0,0>}

Orthographic.pov

sphere {0,2000 pigment {rgb 1} finish {ambient 1}} camera {orthographic 
location <0,0,15000> look_at <0,0,0>}

Note that the latter camera generates a completely white image rather than 
a non-perspective version of the image generated by the perspective camera.  
The up and right vectors must be specified (as I said) in order to get a 
usable field of view.

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Jan 2002 12:17:59 -0500, che### [at] sympaticoca (Coridon Henshaw)
wrote:

>> Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.

>Try it yourself.

I suggest you trust Thorsten on this one. After all, he made the
changes to the camera code in question :)

That documentation does not _yet_ reflect them is another story but I
can't really blame the docs folk as I haven't written even a byte of
it (though I probably should have; oh well...) and there wasn't enough
time between the committing of aforementioned changes and the b10
release, so...


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in 
news:i9ae5u0kkkncqodnmkse9dn6utgds3iaej@4ax.com:

> On 29 Jan 2002 12:17:59 -0500, che### [at] sympaticoca (Coridon Henshaw)
> wrote:
> 
>>> Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.
> 
>>Try it yourself.
> 
> I suggest you trust Thorsten on this one. After all, he made the
> changes to the camera code in question :)

If a coder says his code does one thing but his executable does another 
(which it does; run the examples and you'll see it, too), I think you can 
understand that I'll take the executable at face value and suggest that the 
coder doublecheck his code.

Post a reply to this message

Wrong.

If you, say, you have "look_at" and "angle" as the
last two statements in your "camera", then even
altering just their order screws up everything (yes,
Thorsten, believe it or not -- the "angle" gets ignored).

BTW, could you please give any reason for altering
the "camera" statement so heavily? E.g. I tried Moray
3.3a (evaluation copy; specially patched for POV 3.5)
and its preview pane did not look correctly until I put
"#version 3.1;" into MorayPov.inc.

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3c5670ea@news.povray.org...
> In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226> ,
che### [at] sympaticoca
> (Coridon Henshaw) wrote:
>
> > Beta 10 ignores the angle statement unless it is the last
> > component in the camera block (this change wasn't documented) and
requires
> > the up and right vectors to be given when using the orthographic camera.
>
> Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.
>
>     Thorsten
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich
> e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
>
> I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

> I suggest you trust Thorsten on this one. After all, he made the
> changes to the camera code in question :)

Does the comment /* can't happen */ ring the bell for you?

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226> , che### [at] sympaticoca
(Coridon Henshaw) wrote:

>> Neither is correct.  Both work at any place in the camera statement.
>
> Try it yourself.

"Work" does simply imply "not ignored", I never said they "work exactly the
same as in POV-Ray 3.1".  This is important as the whole issue of fixing the
camera statement order of keywords problem in 3.5 will break some scenes that
depend on the previously existing chaos.

I suggest you just wait until the changes are complete (and there is one
deterministic order) in the next beta.  Then we can determine if any possible
uses of the camera keywords and their order are no longer covered and thus
solutions for those occasions need to be developed.

    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