"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
> news:web.46b4ce1961f98363e33c01c00@news.povray.org...
>
> > OTOH, assuming the objects in the scene are more or less on a plane
> > perpendicular to the direction of the camera (I'm still imagining several
> > flat boxes with image maps on them), then even with a perspective camera,
> > you ought to be able to simply scale all the objects together to get
> > things
> > to fit and not  have to think about changing the camera.
>
>      Charles, I think Lildog is trying to keep some detail in the images
> also. If the image is scaled down, then it gets harder to see detail which
> is important with jewellery.
>

If you scale the scene by 3/5 and while also increasing the output
resolution from 300x300 to 500x500 (see end of that paragraph), then each
object depicted in the image should take the same number of pixels as they
originally did, which is what I thought lildog was wanting.
Charles

Post a reply to this message