To all,

oh, I am so sorry I did not see all your replies ... I posted the file at


http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.5a00344aecd2fa6f80db62550%40news.povray.org%3E/

and thought you might respond there. Now when I saw there is still no post of
anyone, I came back here and couldn't believe my eyes :D

So, to catch up a bit, thanks for all those nice words! It's a pleasure to help
with this minimum contribution, ... especially after I received so much of your
help. Since I will use this code now for a larger scene I'll see if I notice any
further bugs. Til now it is working out well.

I'm sorry that I, for the above reasons, missed some of your ideas of how to
format the file/filename. May I post it again with these corrections?

I'll post the final animation when it's done. But it may take time because I'll
do this after I handed in my dissertation (at 2017-11-30 [ISO-format :D]).

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Hmm; I think I'm beginning to see your point (and correct me if I'm wrong): An
> animation with a moving camera is still just a series of discrete static images
> strung together, each with its own 'static' camera position for that frame-- and
> the code does work successfully on individual images with a 'static' camera
> (which is the *only* camera position being rendered at the moment.) So the code
> apparently doesn't need to know or even care about where the *camera* will be
> for the next frame.
>
> I need to take a closer look at your code and try it out; I didn't realize that
> it's camera-agnostic.
>
> Thanks for nudging me to think more clearly about this ;-)

Hey Kenneth,

I did not expect to receive this from you and especially not to make you really
think on this :D ... I hope this does not sound arrogant in any way (sometimes
its difficult to weigh such fragile phrases in a language which is foreign to
me; but at least it is not meant to sound arrogant in any way :) ) ... but it is
maybe because I am a physicist that this seems somehow natural to me. [<- this
sentence is far to long]. However, the way in which you reformulated what I said
appears just correct to me. I did not see anything in POV-Ray that could
distinguish between a `static` and an `animated` render. So POV-Ray itself is
agnostic for that in the first place. It follows that SharkD's code could only
deviate from this fact if it made any "assumption" on a -- say -- default camera
position. Which it does not :) --- q.e.d. :D

Best,
Carlo

Post a reply to this message