On 29-9-2013 16:05, Ive wrote:
> Am 29.09.2013 14:27, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 29-9-2013 14:02, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> Could it be that the image format in which the tga slices are rendered
>> influences the final result? In other words, should objects be rendered
>> using a /square/ image format (1:1 ratio) in the first place? I blindly
>> followed Gilles Tran's advice to use a 1.33 ratio. This might be
>> irrelevant for clouds but not for other objects...
>>
> Gilles used in his demo a 512x384 pixel resolution, therefor a = 1.333
> ratio (512/384 = 1.33...).
> When you use another resolution also another scaling is required. The
> same goes for the scaling in the z-direction, it depends on the the
> number of slices you have produced in relation to the image dimension.
>
> Years ago I've written a little C program that did work with 16bit png
> images as input format for producing df3-files (I used it for some
> stellar nebulae) and it did in addition spit out the required POV-Ray
> scaling to keep the original proportions. Sadly I do not find it anymore
> (and worst: not its source) but as it is really trivial I might do it
> again...
>
> -Ive
>

After testing the skeleton with a 1:1 ratio tga slices:

To Le_Forgeron:
Ratio /is/ relevant in so far that it changes the x-axis scale factor. 
For the skeleton the factor changes from 3 (1.333 ratio) to 2.2 (1:1 ratio).

To Le_Forgeron & Ive:
A new conversion program seems indeed to be in need...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message