"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "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


Hmm, upon re-reading the original post and others' replies, it looks like
most people are reading it as the piece of jewelry grew 3-dimensionally too
big to stay in view of the current camera, rather than using POV-Ray for 2D
composition of multiple images like I was guessing.  So... what I was
suggesting with a perspective camera would decrease the amount of
'perspective' for anything with much depth.
Charles

Post a reply to this message