Interesting how this is a commercial solicitation, but IS NOT SPAM.  It's
something actually useful and of interest to the members of the group, unlike
diet scams or even offers to sell some 3d plugin.

Mike Weber wrote:

> I took two of my renderings and re-rendered them at 1280x1024 and sent them
> (including a bunch of images from my digital camera) to http://www.ofoto.com
> I just got them today and they are outstanding.  If you sign up now they'll
> give you the first 100 pictures for free and if you use there upload util,
> you get another 50.  The first order has free shipping, otherwise its $1.99
> and 4x6 prints are $.49 each.
>

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, what it really comes down to I guess is what the printer is doing with it.
Still, a 1280x1024 pixel image is going to retain that 1.25:1 ratio unless
viewed at another resolution.  I think the printout will be keeping the aspect
ratio of the pixel resolution and won't be anything to do with screen viewing
resolution anyhow for this case of photo printing.

Bob

"Nieminen Juha" <war### [at] sarakerttunencstutfi> wrote in message
news:38aa79f1@news.povray.org...
| Bob Hughes <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=pov-news:> wrote:
| : Hope you realize that 1280x1024 is a 1.25:1 aspect ratio and set the camera
to
| : that instead of using the default 1.333:1.
|
|   But if the image is stretched to a 4:3 aspect ratio, it will look as it
| should. However, if the image is rendered with the camera set to an aspect
| ratio of 1.25:1 and then it's stretched to 4:3, it will no be good.
|
| --
| main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
| ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

What is Management Team link??

Mike

Bob Hughes wrote in message <38a9fa10@news.povray.org>...
>Yeah, free is always good to start off with.  I've bookmarked that site so
>thanks for telling about it.
>Looks like a brand new company.  Btw, have you seen the Management Team
link?
>Hopefully it's not a bad sign  ;-)
>
>Bob
>
>"Mike Weber" <mik### [at] pyxiscom> wrote in message
>news:38a9eb8d@news.povray.org...
>| but hey, it was free!
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I couldn't get a clean URL to it but it's just in the About Us link at the
bottom of the web page there at ofoto.  Management Team link on the left side
there.

Bob

"Mike Weber" <mik### [at] pyxiscom> wrote in message
news:38a9d4d2@news.povray.org...
| I took two of my renderings and re-rendered them at 1280x1024 and sent them
| (including a bunch of images from my digital camera) to http://www.ofoto.com
| I just got them today and they are outstanding.  If you sign up now they'll
| give you the first 100 pictures for free and if you use there upload util,
| you get another 50.  The first order has free shipping, otherwise its $1.99
| and 4x6 prints are $.49 each.
|
| I don't have anything to do with them, I just think the picture quality is
| outstanding - and if they have a huge customer base, then hopefully they'll
| stick around longer.
|
| Mike
| www.geocities.com/mikepweber
|
|
|

Post a reply to this message

What's all this about 1.333 and 1.25 aspect ratios? 4x6 is 1.5.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> What's all this about 1.333 and 1.25 aspect ratios? 4x6 is 1.5.

But 800/600 is 1.33333... so you have to change either the resolution or the
aspect you want to render at for it to print correctly.

--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:09:35 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

>Hope you realize that 1280x1024 is a 1.25:1 aspect ratio and set the camera to
>that instead of using the default 1.333:1.
>
>Bob
>
>"Mike Weber" <mik### [at] pyxiscom> wrote in message
>news:38a9d4d2@news.povray.org...
>| I took two of my renderings and re-rendered them at 1280x1024 and sent them
>| (including a bunch of images from my digital camera) to http://www.ofoto.com
>

I think you both might be forgetting something. If you want the render
to totally  fill a 4x6 print without cropping, you don't want a
1280x1024 image anyway. 4x6 prints have an aspect ratio of 1.5 You
probably want to create a rendering with a 1.5 aspect ratio in the
first place.

When I create images for my local photo lab to print as 4x6 prints on
photo paper, I create them as 1800x 1200 images. The lab is using a
Konica machine that is optimized for 300dpi input. I actually spoke to
a Konica rep personally get the 300 dpi recommendation, because the
local lab had no idea what to recommend. Other brands and models of
printers will have different requirements. It's always a good idea to
ask your lab what the best resolution is, and if they don't seem to
know, then do what I did. Call the people that manufactured their
equipment, and ask them.    :)

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Good to know, I hadn't thought of the 6" by 4" print size, I'm usually printing
my own stuff at home in landscape onto full page without thinking much about the
dimensions on the 8.5" by 11" paper; meaning I don't do anything but render at
typical screen aspect ratio and just print as large as will fit onto the page.

Bob

"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:ADuuOOYvMbWryLFAoQPcu2g37gKJ@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:09:35 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
| <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
|
| >Hope you realize that 1280x1024 is a 1.25:1 aspect ratio and set the camera
to
| >that instead of using the default 1.333:1.
| >
| >Bob
| >
| >"Mike Weber" <mik### [at] pyxiscom> wrote in message
| >news:38a9d4d2@news.povray.org...
| >| I took two of my renderings and re-rendered them at 1280x1024 and sent them
| >| (including a bunch of images from my digital camera) to
http://www.ofoto.com
| >
|
| I think you both might be forgetting something. If you want the render
| to totally  fill a 4x6 print without cropping, you don't want a
| 1280x1024 image anyway. 4x6 prints have an aspect ratio of 1.5 You
| probably want to create a rendering with a 1.5 aspect ratio in the
| first place.
|
| When I create images for my local photo lab to print as 4x6 prints on
| photo paper, I create them as 1800x 1200 images. The lab is using a
| Konica machine that is optimized for 300dpi input. I actually spoke to
| a Konica rep personally get the 300 dpi recommendation, because the
| local lab had no idea what to recommend. Other brands and models of
| printers will have different requirements. It's always a good idea to
| ask your lab what the best resolution is, and if they don't seem to
| know, then do what I did. Call the people that manufactured their
| equipment, and ask them.    :)
|
| later,
| Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> David Fontaine wrote:
> > What's all this about 1.333 and 1.25 aspect ratios? 4x6 is 1.5.
>
> But 800/600 is 1.33333... so you have to change either the resolution or the
> aspect you want to render at for it to print correctly.

Yes, of course.
See, Nieminen Juha confused me with that talk about strecthing a 1.25 to a 1.333
and having it look right; if you rendered at 1.25 and wanted it printed at 1.5,
1.333 would never come into play anyway.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
: See, Nieminen Juha confused me

  Cool! ;)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message