 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If you render an image bigger than your screen size and set the preview
window to maximised, it uses some really ugly scaling algorithm to fit the
rendered image in the window. Could something better be used?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, scott wrote:
> If you render an image bigger than your screen size and set the preview
> window to maximised, it uses some really ugly scaling algorithm to fit
> the rendered image in the window. Could something better be used?
>
>
hmmmm ... could be totally off base here, but isn't that a function of
the window manager you're using and not povray?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.05.2010 16:08, schrieb scott:
> If you render an image bigger than your screen size and set the preview
> window to maximised, it uses some really ugly scaling algorithm to fit
> the rendered image in the window. Could something better be used?
I don't see anything in there that would deserve the term "ugly", except
maybe the scaling of the grey/white checkered pattern indicating the
areas that haven't been rendered yet. That, and maybe the fact that it's
not using any form of interpolation. But I'd consider neither of those
seriously unfit for a preview window.
Though of course if you'd volunteer to improve it, I guess you'd be
happily invited ;-)
(Then again, maybe you're seeing something I failed to see in my simple
experiments I just did.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.05.2010 16:24, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, scott wrote:
>> If you render an image bigger than your screen size and set the preview
>> window to maximised, it uses some really ugly scaling algorithm to fit
>> the rendered image in the window. Could something better be used?
>>
> hmmmm ... could be totally off base here, but isn't that a function of
> the window manager you're using and not povray?
I'd be surprised if that was the case even with X Window programs (where
the concept of a window manager does exist), let alone MS Windows (where
there is no such thing as a "window manager" except for the basic
functionality supplied by the OS and whatever GUI framework the app
happens to be using.
Notmally, I'd expect a window manager to add some scroll bars at best,
leaving it up to the application to adjust the window contents to a
changed window size.
Though POV-Ray presently does indeed use some Windows GDI API functions
to scale the image if necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.05.2010 16:08, schrieb scott:
> If you render an image bigger than your screen size and set the preview
> window to maximised, it uses some really ugly scaling algorithm to fit
> the rendered image in the window. Could something better be used?
BTW, I just had a look at the Windows front-end code, to find that it
would be quite easy to change it to use a prettier scaling method - all
it would take would be to change a scaling-mode constant, and slightly
adjust some code called whenever an SMP square has been rendered.
However, that change would apparently break compatibility with Windows
95/98/Me; I don't think such a minor improvement would be worth that price.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> BTW, I just had a look at the Windows front-end code, to find that it
> would be quite easy to change it to use a prettier scaling method - all
> it would take would be to change a scaling-mode constant, and slightly
> adjust some code called whenever an SMP square has been rendered.
> However, that change would apparently break compatibility with Windows
> 95/98/Me; I don't think such a minor improvement would be worth that price.
who the freak still uses those ancient interfaces?!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.05.2010 23:22, schrieb nemesis:
> clipka escreveu:
>> BTW, I just had a look at the Windows front-end code, to find that it
>> would be quite easy to change it to use a prettier scaling method -
>> all it would take would be to change a scaling-mode constant, and
>> slightly adjust some code called whenever an SMP square has been
>> rendered. However, that change would apparently break compatibility
>> with Windows 95/98/Me; I don't think such a minor improvement would be
>> worth that price.
>
> who the freak still uses those ancient interfaces?!
How about people who have some spare computer they want to use to run
POV-Ray renders, and choose to install neither XP or newer (because the
computer might be too slow, or they might want to save money on a
license and re-use some old Win98 license for that purpose), nor Linux
(because they don't grok it well enough)?
I'm not saying breaking compatibility would be a horribly dear price to
pay /per se/, but I think /this/ particular issue is not worth paying it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/19/2010 07:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> <snip> nor Linux
> (because they don't grok it well enough)?
ha-ha ... I'm thinking of those tv commercials that say "so easy even a
caveman can do it"
> I'm not saying breaking compatibility would be a horribly dear price to
> pay /per se/, but I think /this/ particular issue is not worth paying it.
concur ... also I would think this issue would probably be pretty low on
the priority list to boot!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymous org> schreef in bericht
news:4bf45fb9$1@news.povray.org...
> Am 19.05.2010 23:22, schrieb nemesis:
>> who the freak still uses those ancient interfaces?!
>
> How about people who have some spare computer they want to use to run
> POV-Ray renders, and choose to install neither XP or newer (because the
> computer might be too slow, or they might want to save money on a license
> and re-use some old Win98 license for that purpose), nor Linux (because
> they don't grok it well enough)?
Exactly. I still have an old PC with Me and an even older portable with 98.
Once in a while I use them. :-)
And I don't grok Linux. ;-)
>
> I'm not saying breaking compatibility would be a horribly dear price to
> pay /per se/, but I think /this/ particular issue is not worth paying it.
I agree.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't see anything in there that would deserve the term "ugly", except
> maybe the scaling of the grey/white checkered pattern indicating the areas
> that haven't been rendered yet. That, and maybe the fact that it's not
> using any form of interpolation. But I'd consider neither of those
> seriously unfit for a preview window.
>
> Though of course if you'd volunteer to improve it, I guess you'd be
> happily invited ;-)
I'll download the source again and take a look.
> (Then again, maybe you're seeing something I failed to see in my simple
> experiments I just did.)
Take a loot at the attached (left maximised, right 100%). I think this is
some kind of "worst case" because it uses diagonal lines and the scale
factor is probably around 99% to fit it full screen.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'image3.png' (44 KB)
Preview of image 'image3.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
