A lot of the rules make the assumption that you'd make a landscape 
orientation of 1200 x 1600, (but there are also references to printing in 
magazines!, which are portrait orientation).

If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice: 
don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.?

Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice: 
> don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.? 
> 

My advice would be, assuming the judges will look at the additional 
renders (these can be added under "source"), to send an additional 
render no more than 960 pixels tall. Your image is going to be viewed at 
that height anyway, better it be viewed as a nice render instead of a 
resize. I guess if you ran out of time, you could at least submit your 
own resize, done with what you believe to be the nicest algorithm for 
your picture.

I wouldn't worry about it much. Any picture with enough details for a 
poster-sized render is going to look less than ideal at screen 
resolutions, no matter the orientation.

  -Shay

news:419ac6ba$1@news.povray.org...

> If  I were to insist on a portrait orientation,   is there any advice:
> don't bother,  it'd be welcome, try it but make sure you do XYZ,  etc.?

Just make sure that using portrait is justified by the subject. For my own
images, I tend to favour portrait orientation to landscape (unless it's
widescreen like 8/3), perhaps because it lends itself to "roomy" pictures
where vertical compositions can be made more towering and impressive.

In any case, the choice of an appropriate format is very important and a
good choice of format and ratio can really define a picture and give it
meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of computer
screen technology, not an artistic requirement.

G.

-- 

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:00:05 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:


>meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of computer
>screen technology, not an artistic requirement.
>
>G.

Interestingly enough, the 4:3 aspect predates computer screen
technology ... it goes back to Thomas Edison.

 http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/aspect-ratios.asp


quoted from that URL: 

"Established in the late 19th century by Thomas Edison,
the 4:3 aspect ratio was officially adopted by the
Society of Motion Picture Engineers as the first film
industry aspect ratio standard. Since the standard
existed before the predominance of television, the
television industry also used the 4:3 standard when it
started broadcasting in the 1930's."



-- 
to all the companies who wait until a large user base becomes
dependant on their freeware, then shafting said happy campers with
mandatory payment for continued usage. I spit on your grave.

<pov### [at] almostbestwebnet> wrote in message
news:kgfqp09fu75h7qb8aut21osjl9pmb0kc5g@4ax.com
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:00:05 +0100, "Gilles Tran"
> <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
>
>
>> meaning. The "traditional" landscape 4/3 is just a byproduct of
>> computer screen technology, not an artistic requirement.
>>
>> G.
>
> Interestingly enough, the 4:3 aspect predates computer screen
> technology ... it goes back to Thomas Edison.
>
> http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/aspect-ratios.asp

Also 3:2 has been used in film still photography for ages, and 3:2 is used 
by most pro digital cameras.