Spider wrote:
> 
> I have to cut in here:
> <<<<<< snip ideas and comments>>>>
> > 3.) Related to the last would be an option to have the program
> >     wrap all object in a union, normalize it's position in
> >     relation to the origin, and then scale it down to a unit
> >     sized object. It is difficult to know how large and where
> >     it is exactly right now and attempts to move and scale it
> >     results in time consuming operations to position and scale
> >     it elsewhere in the scene.
> Hmm, not a one unit size object, that would cause a too big data-loss in most
> cases(the epsilon values) but instead a 10 or 100 unit sized object. This isn't
> very meaningful in smaller images, but when it comes to larger ones(more data)
> it is important or there may be visible changes in the image.
> 
> --
> //Spider

  I do not suggest that you scale it automaticaly to 1x1x1 rather
my intention is an object that would not exceed a 1 unit boundry
in any it's the scalable directions i.e.

 The object is scaled at:
  scale<8,4,0.5>
  
 A uniform rescale of:
  scale 0.125 

 would fit it inside a one unit square boundry. There would be no data
loss as a result of this. I am not asking to rescale the image or any
single object rather put them all in one union then scale the whole
thing as a single entity.

 I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message