I think that there's a fundamental problem that a 4:3 aspect ratio is built-in
to the current camera.  It's not just about taking other's code and abusing it
(albeit how many really *want* to wreck non 4:3 viewing). It's not about trying
to make something full screen-- there is the concept of making one's own "art"
for print with povray, and I've got one non-4:3 monitor anyway. And what about
making square avatars?!

Stepping back a moment, there is a problem with the docs, notably the diagram,
in that the aspect ratio is NOT part of the visual equation the reader is
invited to make.  The docs have all the truth in them, in that anyone who
complains can be pointed to a phrase where they didn't RTFM, but the doesn't
*teach*. The diagram also doesn't sufficiently tell the relation between angle
and distance. If you already know how it works, the diagram doesn't lie, but it
doesn't tell you how povray uses them or handles the hierarchy of the
potentially redundant variables.


Scott sums up my views with:

<< The current default behaviour means that if you want to render someone elses
scene for your desktop wallpaper or to print out, you have to search through
their code for the right camera block and make some changes, I can't even
remember the number of times I have had to search through and put in some
"image_width/image_height" statement.  Is this really the best thing for the
default behaviour?  IMO the default behaviour should mean the least work for
what is most common, ie if you actually *want* non-square pixels you should
have to go and fiddle with the code.>>


IMHO, the current camera object is something that a smart person *can* figure
out with some work. But with so many things in programming, eventually the
exercise in pure logic ends, and the question of "How did this person decide to
put it together?" starts.  It's not logical.

Post a reply to this message