As Gilles said: detail images are here to show that size reduction hasn't
affected the image quality, or details loss.

So you don't need to have an exact "extract" of the image. The perspective
may be changed, etc.

Can you go further? For example: i made a detailed model for my scene, but
you don't see all of it, or there's a shadow masking some details, etc.
Can i make a "model show"/demo instead of having an image extract (you know,
several point of views for one lone object)?

Could that be interpreded as "show us how far you've gone into details by
sending us two detailed views in 1024*748 minimum"? This would be less
restrictive, and easier to understand (i still haven't understand what
those detailed views should be... not all povers have a high english
level!).

"selsek" <sel### [at] despammedcom> wrote in message
news:web.412faadc2c3552b9f320a5370@news.povray.org...
> As Gilles said: detail images are here to show that size reduction hasn't
> affected the image quality, or details loss.
>
> So you don't need to have an exact "extract" of the image. The perspective
> may be changed, etc.
>

i guess i was under a different assumption, which is that the detailed
versions were to show that the winning image would be suitably detailed to
look good when printed as a poster. and if that were the idea behind it,
then you would in fact need to provide a detailed view in the same
perspective to illustrate your attention to detail.

news:412fac84$1@news.povray.org...

> i guess i was under a different assumption, which is that the detailed
> versions were to show that the winning image would be suitably detailed to
> look good when printed as a poster. and if that were the idea behind it,
> then you would in fact need to provide a detailed view in the same
> perspective to illustrate your attention to detail.

That's it. Typical example: let's imagine that the winning image contains a
mesh textured with an image map (correctly interpolated). It looks perfect
(and it is) at screen size. Now this image is used for the cover of a CG
magazine, and the requirement from the publishers is for a 20x30 cm, 300 dpi
image, roughly 2400 x 3600 pixels. Aw, suddenly the mesh looks coarse and
angular and the texture all blurry. Or (a problem I had in the past when
porting screen-sized image to the print world) objects that looked properly
positioned appear now floating over each other. Also: primitives that look
really primitive, normals that look really flat, this sort of thing.
The main idea is that the image needs to look perfect on something else than
a computer screen, so that modeling, texturing and detailing should be tuned
accordingly.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters