POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.documentation.inbuilt : BITMAP_TYPE and HF_TYPE documentation versus functionality. : Re: BITMAP_TYPE and HF_TYPE documentation versus functionality. Server Time: 17 Feb 2019 21:43:05 GMT
  Re: BITMAP_TYPE and HF_TYPE documentation versus functionality.  
From: Kenneth
Date: 8 Jan 2018 08:10:01
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> If the user has not specified an explicit BITMAP_TYPE | HF_TYPE, POV-Ray
> will first look for any known extension in the "filename" string.  If
> found, that extension is the image format POV-Ray will try and read.

I didn't know this. (I've never left out the file type, so I never noticed it.)
> Where the filename has no recognizable extension and BITMAP_TYPE |
> HF_TYPE has not been specified, POV-Ray will try and read the "filename"
> as whatever the current output image format is. Only the image_map
> documentation mentions this latter behavior.

The only problem I could imagine is if two files have the same name but
different file extensions. I've actually done this with some image files, but
just as tests (.png vs. jpeg versions, for example.) In which case, I suppose
the jpeg file would be chosen... alphabetically? My own opinion is that, by
leaving out any mention of BITMAP_TYPE or HF_TYPE in the docs, new users might
*possibly* run into a problem due to leaving out the file extension-- and not
know why. (I honestly can't think of a problematic file-type example-- other
than the one Clipka mentioned-- but who knows?)

I can also imagine that, in the 'new' scenario, new users who see an 'old' scene
file-- one with "my_image.jpg" in it, for example-- may scratch their heads
about why the file type was included like that-- when the docs no longer mention

[Just playing 'Devil's advocate' here.]

Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.