"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49c3918c@news.povray.org...
>   You get all the problems inherent with it. They are mentioned in the Q&T
> list.

Ok ... get it now. There was a passage in the unix help on this subject ....
worded slightly different from the link that Carlo posted.

Warp .... you must be mellowing. With the rookie sounding question like I
posted I should have gotten a RTFM response ;-)

Cheers

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

clipka wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?IkrDqXLDtG1lIE0uIEJlcmdlciI=?= <jeberger@free.fr> wrote:
>>  Actually, it's almost *never* a 4:3 ratio. Typical formats include:
>> 720x576 (PAL), 640x576 (PAL), 480x576 (PAL), 720x480 (NTSC), 640x480
>> (NTSC, the only 4:3 format here) and 480x480 (NTSC).
> 
> Actually, PAL and NTSC have nothing to do with resolution or aspect ratios -
> they're just standards for color encoding in analog TV signals.
> 
	Yes, I know that those resolutions aren't in the PAL or NTSC
standards. However, those are the resolutions used by digital TV
(whether DVD or broadcast) when targeting PAL or NTSC displays
respectively.

		Jerome
- --
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknD7Q4ACgkQd0kWM4JG3k82mACeOkIknqWsgEfrPeOvfM8eOQ77
9xQAoK+VaQDCWBKcwg3BvOjTBXNH10rp
=P3Tn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> This time, clipka, you aren't *enlightened me immensely*.
> For this, sorry! :-D
>
....
>
> About "Frame Count" and "Batch Render" I am in *loud silence*, for now.

I think I need to install some special codec before I can make any sense of
these sentences: I must confess I don't have the slightest clue what you want
to say with either of them.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Thanks Carlo for speaking up .... I read clipka's post several times and I
> kept thinking isn't that what the 'right' keyword is for?
>
> I use this in my camera definition:
> right x*image_width/image_height

So do I, typically, but...

> then all I have to do is  +w1024 +w768 or even +w1600 +900 and bingo!!!
>
> What have I missed?

The current version of the FAQ is very clear on this, saying "DON'T!"

First time I read it, I was like, *WHAT*?? But reading through it, I noticed
that the FAQ does make some valid points, arguing that this only works with 1:1
pixel aspect ratio; and if scenes are passed on, people may not get the shot
intended by the artist because they happen to normally use a different aspect
ratio.

The "right x*image_width/image_height" approach does *not* allow you to specify
in the scene file what aspect ratio you designed it for.

The current set of .ini and scene parameters does give you all the *freedom* you
may ever need - but it is poor at specifying *constraints*.

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>  Yes, I know that those resolutions aren't in the PAL or NTSC
> standards. However, those are the resolutions used by digital TV
> (whether DVD or broadcast) when targeting PAL or NTSC displays
> respectively.

Question remains whether those resolutions are intended to be shown with 1:1
pixel aspect ratio. E.g. I'd expect the 480x480 format *not* to be intended for
a square image aspect ratio, but rather for the classic 4:3 aspect ratio, using
"squished" pixels.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > This time, clipka, you aren't *enlightened me immensely*.
> > For this, sorry! :-D
> >
> ....
> >
> > About "Frame Count" and "Batch Render" I am in *loud silence*, for now.
>
> I think I need to install some special codec before I can make any sense of
> these sentences: I must confess I don't have the slightest clue what you want
> to say with either of them.

The codec does not exist, this is a *bug* in my brain.
Sorry if I offended you, I have a strange (very strange) sense of humor, (but I
have a great respect for You).
I do a reset.

--
Carlo

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

clipka wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>  Yes, I know that those resolutions aren't in the PAL or NTSC
>> standards. However, those are the resolutions used by digital TV
>> (whether DVD or broadcast) when targeting PAL or NTSC displays
>> respectively.
> 
> Question remains whether those resolutions are intended to be shown with 1:1
> pixel aspect ratio. E.g. I'd expect the 480x480 format *not* to be intended for
> a square image aspect ratio, but rather for the classic 4:3 aspect ratio, using
> "squished" pixels.
> 
	Uh, yes it is, sorry I intended to say it but it got lost in the
posting :(

		Jerome
- --
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknEDp8ACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9f8gCfRbhTFkbE8DhY01XZtmGB+DV8
1nEAoIGmGn169RzQUgvRlurrd0AGDTRu
=yYqX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Sorry if I offended you, I have a strange (very strange) sense of humor, (but I
> have a great respect for You).

Not much of an offense received at my end. As a matter of fact, not much
received at all: Even presuming a strange sense of humor, those two sentences
still don't make any sense at all to me, so I continue to suspect a strange
(very strange) use of language instead ;)

Well, maybe a reset fixes that as well :P

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Sorry if I offended you, I have a strange (very strange) sense of humor, (but I
> > have a great respect for You).
>
> ...so I continue to suspect a strange (very strange) use of language instead ;)
>

Obviously, the result of my ignorance!
Maybe because I write in *macaronic English*?
:-D

</Sorry, I close off-topic>

--
Carlo

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> I was thinking about the separation between SDL and command line parameters for
> a few things:
> 
> 
> * Image & Pixel Aspect Ratio:
> 
> There are two common practices to write scenes regarding this:
> (a) write a scene for a fixed image aspect ratio (e.g. 4:3);
> (b) write a scene for a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio.
> 
> I personally favor (b), as it always gives me an undistorted image even if I
> happen to choose the wrong image aspect ratio - or even happen to choose a
> different one later in the process.
> 
> The FAQ argues strongly against (b), obviously favoring (a), claiming that this
> makes the user aware that he chose the wrong aspect ratio because he can see
> that the image is distorted, while in the other case he may get a different
> "viewport" than intended by the scene author, without even noticing.
> 
> I insist that this argument does not hold, because the difference between the
> intended aspect ratio and the one picked for rendering may be ever so subtle,
> and the scene may not contain enough objects that hint at the originally
> intended aspect ratio clear enough. This is especially a problem with 4:3 vs.
> 5:4 aspect ratios.
> 
> I agree, however, that (b) is not an ideal solution either, as a 1:1 pixel
> aspect ratio may not always be desired.

I think that this is an issue on which there is no substitute for the 
user knowing exactly what he/she is doing.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message