Christoph Hormann wrote:

>I think you should watch your language - personal insults are not
>appropriate here.

Granted. But since Thorsten has never felt bound by such niceties, I'm not
going to lose any sleep over it.

>I am currently rendering around frame 800 and did not make any strange
>observations yet. I doubt there will be any.  Only change made is
>setting output file type to ppm (+fp).  I am using the current
>development version and not POV 3.5 but that does not make much
>difference probably.

If you're not going to use the generally-released version of POV-Ray that's
available to the user community, that's not a valid basis for comparison,
is it? And if the problem truly is in the PNG library subsystem, rendering
with ppm does nothing but confirm that the problem isn't in ppm. Why didn't
you run the test exactly the way I described it, using the general release
of POV-Ray 3.5?

Post a reply to this message