 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Obviously:
nothing important, per se...
In default camera: right 1.33*x
Uhm, ok, but 320x240, 512x384, 800x600, 1024x768, and so on are:
1.33333333333....
Well, I reason as a *beginner unwary* ;), and if I use the classic 640x480 I
could also imagine that, for a simple scene, I can also afford to omit the
*camera* statement, because already well be the default parameters.
Wrong. (I remember that I am a *beginner unwary*).
- But 1.33 is not 1.333333...
For example: in a circle of 1049 pixels diameter, if they lose two in
vertical direction.
And: Pignorm.inc in ...\POV-Ray for Windows v3.6\scenes\textures has:
camera {
location <0,1,-14>
direction 3*z
}
and pattern examples files start with:
//-w320 -h240
//-w800 -h600 +a0.3
which is: 1.333333... not 1.33
- Suggestion: Why not use this?: right (4.0/3.0)*x
as a default?
or right x*image_width/image_height ?
There are more important things to do in POV-Ray, obviously.
Thank you for reading this post and I hope I have not bored anyone!
;-)
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Obviously:
> nothing important, per se...
>
> In default camera: right 1.33*x
>
> Uhm, ok, but 320x240, 512x384, 800x600, 1024x768, and so on are:
> 1.33333333333....
>
> [snip]
> - But 1.33 is not 1.333333...
Yes, this a subtle difference that needed to be pointed out; thanks for posting
it.
I imagine that the discrepancies found in the various POV-Ray files and defaults
are due to so many different code contributors during its past
development--some contributors being more careful than others, perhaps; or
writing the code in POV 'shorthand' rather than the basic syntax. Sometimes,
it's difficult to tell just *what* the modern, accepted form of writing POV
definitions is, since there seem to be so many different (and possibly
deprecated) ways of doing it, having to do with backwards compatibility.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> "Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Obviously:
> > nothing important, per se...
> >
> > In default camera: right 1.33*x
> >
> > Uhm, ok, but 320x240, 512x384, 800x600, 1024x768, and so on are:
> > 1.33333333333....
> >
> > [snip]
> > - But 1.33 is not 1.333333...
>
> Yes, this a subtle difference that needed to be pointed out; thanks for posting
> it.
>
> I imagine that the discrepancies found in the various POV-Ray files and defaults
> are due to so many different code contributors during its past
> development--some contributors being more careful than others, perhaps; or
> writing the code in POV 'shorthand' rather than the basic syntax. Sometimes,
> it's difficult to tell just *what* the modern, accepted form of writing POV
> definitions is, since there seem to be so many different (and possibly
> deprecated) ways of doing it, having to do with backwards compatibility.
>
> KW
Thank you, Kenneth.
This problem exists because it easily falls into error.
For example, a recent illustrious victim:
*Jonathan Hunt* (sorry Jonathan! ;-)) with the immortal *Pebbles*:
http://xlcus.com/povray/pebbles/pebbles.pov
camera
{
location <0, 10, -39>
look_at <0, 0, -21>
angle 55
#if (FeatureFocalBlur)
aperture 0.25
blur_samples 256
focal_point<0, 0, -21>
confidence 0.95
variance 1/256
#end
}
At "1600x1200" you lose 3 pixels side!
http://xlcus.com/povray/pebbles/pebbles-1600x1200.jpg
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Discovered accidentally, by the excellent MLPov-source:
- camera.cpp :
...
/*ML: bugfix_aspect_ratio*/
#ifdef BUGFIX_ASPECT_RATIO
Make_Vector(New->Right, 4.0/3.0, 0.0, 0.0);
#else
Make_Vector(New->Right, 1.33, 0.0, 0.0);
#endif
/*-ML: bugfix_aspect_ratio*/
...
Only one line to edit?
But I'm not a programmer, and for that I would be happy to have an opinion of a
programmer.
In short, I want to know if I have made a mistake or not.
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Only one line to edit?
> But I'm not a programmer, and for that I would be happy to have an opinion of a
> programmer.
Looks reasonable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Only one line to edit?
> > But I'm not a programmer, and for that I would be happy to have an opinion of a
> > programmer.
>
> Looks reasonable.
I hoped in your reply...
Thank you.
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
