This scene came to my mind just after I woke up yesterday. Simple but 
dark and moody. I guess the aperture should be reduced a bit, but I 
don't want to re-render that beast, it took nearly 11h on my Athlon XP 
1700+.

Ah, and what do you think of the resolution 1280x1024, which has a 
non-4:3 aspect ratio? Is it ok to post such images here or does anyone 
object?

I prefer to render in that resolution because my it's my desktop 
resolution. I own a TFT monitor, and, as you might know, one should 
always use the physical resolution of a TFT for maximum quality. 
Otherwise you get either black borders, or a rescaled, often 
interpolated image.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nukecontainer.jpg' (62 KB)

Preview of image 'nukecontainer.jpg'

nowadays I almost every time render my images at 1280x1024 which is my
screen resolution. If you rescale it to 800 width, you're gonna get 800x640
heheheheh. And I like the aperture settings, because the scene gets more
like a photograph!

Post a reply to this message

Timon Christl wrote:
>Ah, and what do you think of the resolution 1280x1024, which has a
>non-4:3 aspect ratio? Is it ok to post such images here or does anyone
>object?

you have artistic license to post in whatever aspect ratio you feel your
work needs to be seen in... :)

--------------------
dan
Goofy Graffix - http://hometown.aol.com/goofygrafx
DanByersArt - http://www.huntel.net/goofygraffix

Post a reply to this message

> This scene came to my mind just after I woke up yesterday. Simple but
> dark and moody. I guess the aperture should be reduced a bit, but I
> don't want to re-render that beast, it took nearly 11h on my Athlon XP
> 1700+.
Looks awesome, I like the mood!

> Ah, and what do you think of the resolution 1280x1024, which has a
> non-4:3 aspect ratio? Is it ok to post such images here or does anyone
> object?
People (myself included) tend to ask for higher resolution images
anyway, so if the size is reasonable (like yours), it might be just as
good to post the large render right away.

1600x1200 BMP anyone? ;)

Great work!

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:01:17 +0100, Peter Hertel wrote:

>> This scene came to my mind just after I woke up yesterday. Simple but
>> dark and moody. I guess the aperture should be reduced a bit, but I
>> don't want to re-render that beast, it took nearly 11h on my Athlon XP
>> 1700+.
> Looks awesome, I like the mood!
> 
>> Ah, and what do you think of the resolution 1280x1024, which has a
>> non-4:3 aspect ratio? Is it ok to post such images here or does anyone
>> object?
> People (myself included) tend to ask for higher resolution images
> anyway, so if the size is reasonable (like yours), it might be just as
> good to post the large render right away.
> 
> 1600x1200 BMP anyone? ;)
> 
> Great work!
> 
> -Peter

PNG's a better (smaller) lossless format and 1600x1200 is great! I always 
render my finals at 1600x1200 +a0.1 and scale em down later (while hanging 
on to the originals). I think sticking to the 4x3 apect ratio for wallpaper 
is good and I'm not sure why they decided to use 1280x1024 as a standard 
resolution instead of 1280x960 or 1440x1080. Shame...

Post a reply to this message

S-Spline will do the trick.

Post a reply to this message

"Timon Christl" <me### [at] christltimonde> wrote in message
news:3e5df5e4@news.povray.org...

Nice - now re-render with radiosity...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:38:23 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:

> "Timon Christl" <me### [at] christltimonde> wrote in message
> news:3e5df5e4@news.povray.org...
> 
> Nice - now re-render with radiosity...

I think it already has some. If you look, you can see some gree tint on the 
floor off in the distance.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:26:26 +0100, Timon Christl <me### [at] christltimonde>
wrote:

>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------080008050700050100010605
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>This scene came to my mind just after I woke up yesterday. Simple but 
>dark and moody. I guess the aperture should be reduced a bit, but I 
>don't want to re-render that beast, it took nearly 11h on my Athlon XP 
>1700+.
>


Pretty.  Like the glowing green.  Like the Black.
Very nice.

Post a reply to this message

Greg Edwards wrote:
> PNG's a better (smaller) lossless format and 1600x1200 is great! I always 
> render my finals at 1600x1200 +a0.1 and scale em down later (while hanging 

I use +fn +a0.3 -j +am2 and most of the time 1280x768. I don't see much 
difference between +a0.1 and +a0.3, so +a0.3 is sufficient, and -j 
because jittering has always disturbed my eyes, even in stills. +am2 
looks a lot better for me than the other methods, so this is almost 
mandatory. For me, that is. 1600 is too much for my poor machine as most 
of my POV experiments take a long time already and I cannot make use of 
the extra resolution, so why render more than necessary?

> on to the originals). I think sticking to the 4x3 apect ratio for wallpaper 
> is good and I'm not sure why they decided to use 1280x1024 as a standard 
> resolution instead of 1280x960 or 1440x1080. Shame...

I don't know, it must be some technical reason.

Post a reply to this message