Jim Holsenback wrote:
> It seems the biggest issue is going to be the assumed_gamma handling change 
> in v3.7. If I'm understanding correctly if the parser sees the inclusion of 
> that keyword it basically spits out a warning and handles gamma correction 
> based on what you have in resolution.ini. Is that correct? So there's no way 

It's a little more complicated than that: best to read the release notes
regarding that (I'll paste the relevant section in a followup to this message).

> Another thing I looked at was some of the animation examples. Some examples 
> had ini files and started clocking through and produced a series of images. 
> Do we want to run through the entire animation, and produce a mov. I have QT 

I don't think this is necessary, just a single still would do.

> I've reread through this thread and it still seems that there is no 
> consensus on image file format and size. Whats the best approach here? 
> Produce a full sized image and just scale for the thumbnails, or two 
> separate runs.

Scaling to thumbnails is fairly easy, so I'd recommend that. For full-size
images you could render at a width of, say, 768, with the height being
whatever that scales to with the aspect ratio taken into account.

> What kind of timeframe are we working against here ..... by the end of the 
> beta cycle and before v3.7 final release?

No specific time other than that obviously we have to get it done before we
release :). It would be nice to have the updated scenes in the betas sooner
than later.

One other suggestion: when leaving a #version in the scene file, it might
be good to add a comment above it that says e.g. "minimum POV-Ray version
needed to render this scene", or something like that.

thanks,

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message