 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If I may comment, that is becoming a much more
common aspect ratio in the last few months.
--
Whatever happened to the Kerbs and the Sosovars?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> If I may comment, that is becoming a much more
> common aspect ratio in the last few months.
>
where? here? interesting...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> If I may comment, that is becoming a much more
> common aspect ratio in the last few months.
I have never seen a monitor with that aspect ratio. It will never fly.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And now I link THEE, O Great Linkmaster. Tho the unit does lack wings, so I
agree that it will never attain flight. : )
http://www.apple.com/displays/acd22/
Dirk
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:38A98B99.FEF27574@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >
> > If I may comment, that is becoming a much more
> > common aspect ratio in the last few months.
>
> I have never seen a monitor with that aspect ratio. It will never fly.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I heard of that ratio here in the postings and
have tried it out. The reasons that I like
it are
1) it is the letterbox ratio used in movies.
2) it cuts about 20% of the render time out.
3) it wasn't common, and I do things like that.
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> If I may comment, that is becoming a much more
> common aspect ratio in the last few months.
>
> --
> Whatever happened to the Kerbs and the Sosovars?
--
Mr. Art
"Often the appearance of reality is more important
than the reality of the appearance."
Bill DeWitt 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 2) it cuts about 20% of the render time out.
How can it reduce render time ?? I really don't understand what you mean !
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pascal Baillehache wrote:
> > 2) it cuts about 20% of the render time out.
>
> How can it reduce render time ?? I really don't understand what you mean !
If you just chop off the top and bottom of a 3:4 pic. If you increased the
width to keep the pixel count the same, it would do nothing for render time.
This chopping is kind of a cheap way of rendering in a smaller res.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If I render a picture at 800x600, that is 480,000 pixels.
If I render a picture at 800x450, that is 360,000 pixels.
The second picture is 25% smaller. Depending on the scene,
the scene will render anywhere from 0% to 25% faster. If
what you do has a lot of background stuff, like clouds, or
trees that you don't need to see the tops of, this can help
cut into the render time. If you have a single object that
you need to see all of, this doesn't help much.
Pascal Baillehache wrote:
>
> > 2) it cuts about 20% of the render time out.
>
> How can it reduce render time ?? I really don't understand what you mean !
>
> Pascal
--
Mr. Art
"Often the appearance of reality is more important
than the reality of the appearance."
Bill DeWitt 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A normal computer sized image could be 640 x 480 (format 4:3), a 16 x 9
image would then be 640 x 360, this you'd have to render less :-)
Anton
In article <38a9d681@news.povray.org>, Pascal Baillehache
<bai### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > 2) it cuts about 20% of the render time out.
>
> How can it reduce render time ?? I really don't understand what you mean !
>
> Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know what is so annoying about you Matt?
It is that you never come out and say what you want to say.
I mean, really.
Blah, blah, blah.
Yak, dot, Yak, dot, com.
whatever.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
