Most of my povray work is for DVD's I put togeather, so I work in the 
"standard" TV ratios - 4:3, and 16:9.  I prefer the 16:9 - it looks more 
natural to my eye.


I also render the occasional wallpaper for my laptop: 1920x1200, which 
is an aspect of 16:10.  Often I just render my 16:9 images at 1920x1200 
- its hard to tell the difference in aspect ratio, and I don't have to 
"reset" the camera to get the FOV I want.

Bryan

Post a reply to this message

Bryan Heit wrote:
> Most of my povray work is for DVD's I put togeather, so I work in the 
> "standard" TV ratios - 4:3, and 16:9.  I prefer the 16:9 - it looks more 
> natural to my eye.
> 
> 
> I also render the occasional wallpaper for my laptop: 1920x1200, which 
> is an aspect of 16:10.  Often I just render my 16:9 images at 1920x1200 
> - its hard to tell the difference in aspect ratio, and I don't have to 
> "reset" the camera to get the FOV I want.

And it's not hard to adjust your scene code to match the camera to the 
screen size:

camera {
   direction vForward*sZoomValue
   right vRight*image_width/image_height
   up vUp
   location pCameraLocation
}

Now the only problem with a change to the aspect ration is the problem 
of making sure that the scenery covers the edges of the image when I 
change the aspect ration.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> It highly depends on the type of scene, but I favour 1/1, 4/3, and 16/9
> (both in landscape and portrait mode). In a few cases, I tend towards
> extremely flat (or narrow) ratios. I never consider their usage for screen
> monitors or any standardization. The ratio is always a purely subjective
> choice. Until now, I didn't consider the golden ratio, but I might.
>
> Thomas

I agree with the sentiment of basing it on what's good for the scene rather
than the display media, but there's an obvious advantage to matching some
common standard when doing generall purpose stuff.  It seems like we're
loosing 4/3 to the populartity of 16/9 and 16/10, both called wide-screen
but neither are nearly as wide as (either) true cinema format.  Maybe I'm a
sentimental fool mourning a possible slow downfall of good old 4/3 for
general-purpose use.   On the other hand, 4/3 is still what people are
posting on here....

Post a reply to this message

Charles C nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 08-02-2007 16:18:
> I'd been wanting to ask this survey-y question a while back but forgot about
> it and then was reminded by the thread titled "Wide-screen orthographic
> camera?"
> Charles

> Question:
> What's your favorite aspect ratio in general and/or for what specific
> purpose?  4/3 has of course been the defacto standard for a long long time
> but seems to be getting used less and less. Televisions are going one way
> and computers are going with something else.  If you want to make an image
> or video that might be displayed on different media or different devices,
> what do you choose?  Here are a few common landscape ratios, but don't
> forget their portrait equilvalents...


> 1/1           1:1 square
> 5/4        1.25:1 e.g. most 17" non-wide-screen monitors @1280x1024, 8x10
> print
> 4/3       1.333:1 e.g. most displays
> 1/sqrt(2) 1.414:1 e.g. iso paper sizes, A4 etc
> 3/2         1.5:1 e.g. 4x6 print
> 16/10       1.6:1 e.g. wide-screen monitors
> 16/9      1.777:1 e.g. dvd's & widescreen tv
>            1.85:1 e.g. not-so-wide cinematography (comedies)
>            2.39:1 e.g. cinematography  (blockbusters)

> Any others? Golden ratio (very close to widescreen monitors)?

Any ratio that's best or more apropriate for the current scene. If the scene ask 
for a 1/3 ratio or a 6/1 one, then so be it!

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes.

Post a reply to this message