"Steve Webb" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> (Don't ask me why 1.7315 is the magic divisor, but it works perfectly).

1/1.7315 must be the factor between unit size and pixel size.... It looks
like you're scaling the camera to your scene which must vary in size by
pixel count. Try (image_width/1.7315)/2.  You should get the middle half of
your desktop.

Another way would be to put the camera in the 0 to 1 range (up 1 right 1)
and scale everything (less the background because if it's an image_map it
should start out in the 0 to 1 range) in your scene by
<1/image_width,1/image_height,1>.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

>  If he is using a 4:3 monitor with a 1280x1024 resolution, the pixels
> are not square and the rendered image will then look distorted.

I think it's more likely he is using an LCD, in which case the aspect ratio 
will be 5:4.

Post a reply to this message

scott <ask### [at] mecom> wrote:
> I think it's more likely he is using an LCD, in which case the aspect ratio 
> will be 5:4.

  I don't really understand why LCDs would do that. The current trend is
to go to wider screens, not narrower ones.
  (I'm not doubting what you are saying. I'm just saying that if that's
true, I really don't understand why they would do that.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> scott <ask### [at] mecom> wrote:
> > I think it's more likely he is using an LCD, in which case the aspect ratio
> > will be 5:4.
>
>   I don't really understand why LCDs would do that. The current trend is
> to go to wider screens, not narrower ones.
>   (I'm not doubting what you are saying. I'm just saying that if that's
> true, I really don't understand why they would do that.)

One trend comes along before another.... 5:4 came along before 16:10   The
sad part is (somebody please tell me I'm wrong) I'm pretty sure I've seen
some (even recently) 1280x1024 LCD monitors with a physical screen aspect
ratio of 4:3, not the 5:4 like they should be.  I think a long time ago
beverage bottlers figured out that a taller bottle is more attractive for
the same volume, and now LCD manufacturers have figured out that wider gets
more "ooooh" factor for the same diagonal measurement while at the same time
being smaller, i.e. cheaper.  My 2c.
Charles

Post a reply to this message

"Steve Webb" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> camera {
>         orthographic
>         right image_width/1.7315
>         up image_height/1.7315
>         look_at 0
>         location z*2000
>         }
>
> (Don't ask me why 1.7315 is the magic divisor, but it works perfectly).
>
That looks suspiciously like square root of 3. I don't know if trigonometry
applies to image_width, but that would be the tan of 60 degrees. I have no
clue why it would be so.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> That looks suspiciously like square root of 3. I don't know if trigonometry
> applies to image_width, but that would be the tan of 60 degrees. I have no
> clue why it would be so.

  If I'm not mistaken, the default 'angle' is 60 (or something close to it),
which is actually calculated from the default 'distance' and other defaults
affecting this value, and the size of the orthographic plane of projection
is calculated from these.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Charles C <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> LCD manufacturers have figured out that wider gets
> more "ooooh" factor for the same diagonal measurement while at the same time
> being smaller, i.e. cheaper.

  Wider is just somehow more comfortable than taller. People tend to
organize things widthwise better. Also, from an image compositionality
point of view a wider image is better than a taller one (because most
sceneries, both outdoors and indoors, are very wide).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> scott <ask### [at] mecom> wrote:
> > I think it's more likely he is using an LCD, in which case the aspect ratio
> > will be 5:4.
>
>   I don't really understand why LCDs would do that. The current trend is
> to go to wider screens, not narrower ones.
>   (I'm not doubting what you are saying. I'm just saying that if that's
> true, I really don't understand why they would do that.)
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

My new one is 16:10.  Seems odd ratio, but that's what they seem to be doing
for ws 22" at the moment.


-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> My new one is 16:10.  Seems odd ratio, but that's what they seem to be doing
> for ws 22" at the moment.

  Maybe it's because it gives nice "round" numbers for resolutions.
For example these are all 16:10 resolutions: 1024x640, 1280x800, 1600x1000.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Trevor G Quayle <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > My new one is 16:10.  Seems odd ratio, but that's what they seem to be doing
> > for ws 22" at the moment.
>
>   Maybe it's because it gives nice "round" numbers for resolutions.
> For example these are all 16:10 resolutions: 1024x640, 1280x800, 1600x1000.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

oddly they make them 1680x1050

-tgq

Post a reply to this message