FWIW, I agree with Andy. I never liked the concept of an external .INI file.
I think all those things should be setable from within the .POV file.

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" wrote:

> FWIW, I agree with Andy. I never liked the concept of an external .INI file.
> I think all those things should be setable from within the .POV file.

Add me to the list. I liked being able to add switches that, for example, set
the quality of the scene based on what was being rendered. Adding a
scene-specific ini file seems to be a step backwards from something so intuitve
and powerful.

Post a reply to this message

Andy Cocker wrote:

> "I hope that we'll still have (re-evaluated?) post-process,

I really hope that they at least keep the "Depth" post-process, as it makes it
very easy to make masks in PhotoShop. I've never found a use for the other
post-process things though.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:06:01 +0100, Andy Cocker wrote:
>Hmm.. I don't think I agree with you there. Personally, I'd like the option
>of using it or not. I prefer to make my scenes 'stand alone', without having
>to load an ., and 'ini_option' would be especially useful when 3rd parties
>render your scenes, so image size/ratio can be preset. 

This is one of those things we'll never agree on.  Image size, display gamma,
quality, include paths, and those sorts of things are not inherently part of
the scene description.  Those are physical characteristics of the image you're
generating rather than a logical description of what it looks like.  They 
should be separated.

>Also, being able to
>place the +QR switch in the scene saves a lot of annoying 'no radiosity'
>moments!

This problem will be fixed in a better way.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbf 1}hollow interior{media{emission 3-T}}}#end 
Z(-x-x.2x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90normal{bumps.02scale.05}}

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message > This is one of those
things we'll never agree on.  Image size, display gamma,
> quality, include paths, and those sorts of things are not inherently part
of
> the scene description.  Those are physical characteristics of the image
you're
> generating rather than a logical description of what it looks like.  They
> should be separated.

I can see your point, but I still think that everything *should* be
optionally set from within the scene file. I mostly used ini_option to
specify image size, and from an artistic point of view, the image size and
aspect ratio are often intrinsic to the desired final image, and IMO *are*
part of the scene description (coming from the point of view previously
stated, that I like scene files to be self-contained. You press RUN, and you
get the image as I designed it).

In any other 3D package, you save a scene, you save everything, including
all output options. Why should POV prevent this option?

>
> >Also, being able to
> >place the +QR switch in the scene saves a lot of annoying 'no radiosity'
> >moments!
>
> This problem will be fixed in a better way.

That's good news.

All the best,

Andy Cocker

Post a reply to this message

What about image size?  If you want to do a large or small render?
What about quality?  If you want to do a fast render, without AA?
What about output?  If you want to change the output file name, location or
type?
All these things are command line options.  To save typing, you are also
able to specify them in INI files.  It just doesn't make sense to "fix" such
things in the POV file, when they need to be more flexible.  Of course,
you -could- just change the settings in the POV file, but why should you
have to edit every POV file you get if you want to change the output name?

Remember what the INI files are, an extension of the command line and, as
such, extremely useful.

...Chambers

"Dave Dunn" <poi### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3B9C1347.325BB8E8@aol.com...
>
>
> "Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I agree with Andy. I never liked the concept of an external .INI
file.
> > I think all those things should be setable from within the .POV file.
>
> Add me to the list. I liked being able to add switches that, for example,
set
> the quality of the scene based on what was being rendered. Adding a
> scene-specific ini file seems to be a step backwards from something so
intuitve
> and powerful.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3b9cf784@news.povray.org...
> I can see your point, but I still think that everything *should* be
> optionally set from within the scene file. I mostly used ini_option to
> specify image size, and from an artistic point of view, the image size and
> aspect ratio are often intrinsic to the desired final image, and IMO *are*
> part of the scene description (coming from the point of view previously
> stated, that I like scene files to be self-contained. You press RUN, and
you
> get the image as I designed it).

You are also assuming square pixels.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3b9cf784@news.povray.org...
>
> I can see your point, but I still think that everything *should* be
> optionally set from within the scene file. I mostly used ini_option to
> specify image size, and from an artistic point of view, the image size and
> aspect ratio are often intrinsic to the desired final image, and IMO *are*
> part of the scene description (coming from the point of view previously
> stated, that I like scene files to be self-contained. You press RUN, and
you
> get the image as I designed it).
>

    Agreed - a good example is abyss.pov in the 3.5 beta 1 distribution - it
doesn't even have associated .ini file and requires a 'non-standard' aspect
ratio - if it were possible to, at the very least, encode the output
aspect-ratio into the .pov it would prevent the problem I discovered - queue
all the sample scenes and render them at 320x240 and abyss.pov comes out all
squished... IMO, this shouldn't happen...

--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail        : sco### [at] innocentcom
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com

*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*

Post a reply to this message

>     Agreed - a good example is abyss.pov in the 3.5 beta 1 distribution -
it
> doesn't even have associated .ini file and requires a 'non-standard'
aspect
> ratio - if it were possible to, at the very least, encode the output
> aspect-ratio into the .pov it would prevent the problem I discovered -
queue
> all the sample scenes and render them at 320x240 and abyss.pov comes out
all
> squished... IMO, this shouldn't happen...

There should maybe be a feature (set by default) to automatically adjust
the rendering area to the camera's aspect ratio.  I can't think of any
situation where it would be problematic.

By "rendering area", I mean that, if the camera ratio is 2:1, and the
rendering
resolution is set to 4:3, the resolution should remain intact, but you'll
get
black stripes on top and bottom, like when you watch a 16:9 movie on a 4:3
TV.

Fabien

Post a reply to this message

"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:3b9efbef@news.povray.org...

>
> >     Agreed - a good example is abyss.pov in the 3.5 beta 1
distribution -
> it
> > doesn't even have associated .ini file and requires a 'non-standard'
> aspect
> > ratio
>
> There should maybe be a feature (set by default) to automatically adjust
> the rendering area to the camera's aspect ratio.  I can't think of any
> situation where it would be problematic.
>

    Yeah, that sounds like a good solution - I don't know how hard it would
be to implement in POV though...

--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail        : sco### [at] innocentcom
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com

*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*

Post a reply to this message