Hi all,

We've changed the rules slightly to relax the requirement on the
detail portion. Instead of 1/10th of the area it may now be 1/25th
of the area. Additionally we have some examples available. Please
check the rules page at http://www.povcomp.com/rules/ for the updated
rules. The example is at http://www.povcomp.com/samples/.

regards,

-- Chris Cason

Chris Cason <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> We've changed the rules slightly to relax the requirement on the
> detail portion. Instead of 1/10th of the area it may now be 1/25th
> of the area.

  May I ask what "relaxing the requirement" means in this case?

  A 1/25th portion of the image is much smaller than a 1/10th, meaning
that you have to actually calculate a partial render of a much larger
image than previously (2.5 times larger), and thus the "zoom" factor
of the detail view is accordinly bigger as well.
  This certainly sounds like a harder requirement, not an easier one.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Warp wrote:
> 
>>We've changed the rules slightly to relax the requirement on the
>>detail portion. Instead of 1/10th of the area it may now be 1/25th
>>of the area.
> 
>   May I ask what "relaxing the requirement" means in this case?
> 
>   A 1/25th portion of the image is much smaller than a 1/10th, meaning

The original rules required an area of 1/100 of the image for the detail 
views (1/10 x 1/10) so 1/25 means the detail views can now cover 4 times 
the area.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

> detail portion. Instead of 1/10th of the area it may now be 1/25th

Correction: I should have said 1/100th of the area. Sorry for the
confusion.

-- Chris

Chris Cason <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> Correction: I should have said 1/100th of the area. Sorry for the
> confusion.

  Ah...

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4141e6c0@news.povray.org...
>> detail portion. Instead of 1/10th of the area it may now be 1/25th
>
> Correction: I should have said 1/100th of the area. Sorry for the
> confusion.
>

I knew it was going to be a mistake to model each grain of sand 
independently... (jk)

So...  Without doing good calculations, I think that would be something like 
4800 x 3600 if entirely rendered at that resolution (with 4:3 aspect ratio), 
which would make a good "huge" Zazzle poster, and doesn't seem all that 
unreasonable to do (20 days at 10pps).

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:41423cbb@news.povray.org...
>
> So...  Without doing good calculations, I think that would be something 
> like 4800 x 3600 if entirely rendered at that resolution (with 4:3 aspect 
> ratio), which would make a good "huge" Zazzle poster, and doesn't seem all 
> that unreasonable to do (20 days at 10pps).
>


Someone can correct me (again) if I'm wrong, but the "big" render size would 
have to be at least 5334x4000 in order to get an 800x800 detail view that 
was <= 1/25 of the original picture.

To get 4800x3600, I simply divided the total number of pixels by 25 to see 
if it was <= an 800x800 image.  That wasn't a good calculation to do, but at 
least I said so.  ;-)

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

In article <4145d55e$1@news.povray.org> , "Jeremy M. Praay" 
<sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Someone can correct me (again) if I'm wrong, but the "big" render size would
> have to be at least 5334x4000 in order to get an 800x800 detail view that
> was <= 1/25 of the original picture.

You are wrong.  The detail image size has to be at least 800 by 800.  This
says nothing about the part in the main image. The rules only require that
the area in the main image the detail image shows is not more than 1/25 of
the total main image area.  You could pick a 1 by 1 pixel area in the main
image and render that with a resolution of 800 by 800 easily.

    Thorsten

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message 
news:4149f442@news.povray.org...
> In article <4145d55e$1@news.povray.org> , "Jeremy M. Praay"
> <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Someone can correct me (again) if I'm wrong, but the "big" render size 
>> would
>> have to be at least 5334x4000 in order to get an 800x800 detail view that
>> was <= 1/25 of the original picture.
>
> You are wrong.  The detail image size has to be at least 800 by 800.  This
> says nothing about the part in the main image. The rules only require that
> the area in the main image the detail image shows is not more than 1/25 of
> the total main image area.  You could pick a 1 by 1 pixel area in the main
> image and render that with a resolution of 800 by 800 easily.
>


I'm not sure that I follow.  Either that or you didn't follow me.  I think 
you're saying that my first estimate of 4800x3600 was closer (obviously 
assuming 4:3 aspect ratio for the original image), though a little on the 
high side.

To avoid any further misunderstandings, my contention is that by using 
+sr/+sc/+er/+ec, we would have to take a 800x800 detail section of an image 
that was not less than 4619x3465 (still assuming 4:3 aspect ratio), if it 
was rendered in full, in order to get a detail section that was less than or 
equal to 1/25 of the entire image.  I suppose those dimensions may be 
negociable by a pixel for each dimension, depending on how/where things get 
rounded.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

In article <414b0e8f$1@news.povray.org> , "Jeremy M. Praay" 
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:

> I'm not sure that I follow.  Either that or you didn't follow me.  I think
> you're saying that my first estimate of 4800x3600 was closer (obviously
> assuming 4:3 aspect ratio for the original image), though a little on the
> high side.
>
> To avoid any further misunderstandings, my contention is that by using
> +sr/+sc/+er/+ec, we would have to take a 800x800 detail section of an image
> that was not less than 4619x3465 (still assuming 4:3 aspect ratio), if it
> was rendered in full, in order to get a detail section that was less than or
> equal to 1/25 of the entire image.  I suppose those dimensions may be
> negociable by a pixel for each dimension, depending on how/where things get
> rounded.

Well, this is what the povcomp sample page (linked in the post that started
this thread) has explained all along, and I don't understand why you are
repeating it?!?  If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
Sorry, I just don't understand your point then!

    Thorsten

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

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