"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that it doesn't matter which corners I choose, as long as
> > the corners are opposite of each other? I don't quite understand.
>
> You need to choose the nearest and the farthest corners, to get the largest
> spread to scale your color map across.

If I understand what you're asking, the min_extent/max_extent features choose
those corners automatically for you. (Although, some of my tests indicate the
'reversal' of those, for some wacky reason.) But generally speaking, they work
quite well.
>
> Kenneth didn't realize that bounding boxes are _always_ cardinal-axis aligned.

.... un, yeah, except for that ;-)

But I'm seeing another oddity about the bounding box that I don't understand.
(See the image.) Of course, I made the box object myself, as a
(hopefully-accurate!) representation of the bounding-box volume-- and
orientation. But in renders looking exactly along the x/y/z axes, there is
clearly additional space between object and box-- when the box should exactly
delineate the boundaries of the object(?). Why that occurs when the object is
rotated is mysterious; it doesn't always happen. But it does make me suspicious,
that maybe just maybe the REAL bounding box may not actually be cardinal-axis
aligned?? Otherwise, where is the extra space coming from? Maybe it's just the
natural behavior of auto-bounding... ?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'chromadepth_bounding_boxes_2.jpg' (123 KB)

Preview of image 'chromadepth_bounding_boxes_2.jpg'