 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know how sometimes the camera just seems to know where it's supposed
to be...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'firstpost.jpg' (187 KB)
Preview of image 'firstpost.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Naylor" <nay### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3B1FF23B.34BDD01A@hotmail.com...
> You know how sometimes the camera just seems to know where it's supposed
> to be...
No, I do not. ;-}
I can relate to this being a "first" better than some others I've seen.
Still a pretty nice abstraction. Is there actually another place the camera
could be? Meaning was this actually a scene from afar, or is this it? :-)
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Naylor" <nay### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3B1FF23B.34BDD01A@hotmail.com...
> You know how sometimes the camera just seems to know where it's supposed
> to be...
Very nice - I like this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:29:31 -0400, Bill Naylor wrote:
>You know how sometimes the camera just seems to know where it's supposed
>to be...
I see we have a new abstract expert on the group, welcome aboard Bill.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:15pm up 126 days, 16:04, 2 users, load average: 1.41, 1.15, 1.05
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting pic. I like the colors. Only problem, it's in the Evil
Resolution. ;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's the Evil Resolution?
800x600?
Huh?
(Forgive me, I'm a newbie)
Thanks for all the comments.
I'll send what it's supposed to look like once I find out what the Evil
Resolution is.
Thanks.
Bill
David Fontaine wrote:
> Interesting pic. I like the colors. Only problem, it's in the Evil
> Resolution. ;)
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-06-11 23:17, Bill Naylor <nay### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> What's the Evil Resolution?
> 800x600?
Nope. 1280x1024. This is the only "standard" resolution which doesn't
have a 4:3 aspect ratio (and hence, non-square pixels on a monitor).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Und *da* wurde also die Demokratie
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-06-13 05:50, Anton Sherwood <bro### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
>> Bill Naylor <nay### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > What's the Evil Resolution?
>
> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> 1280x1024. This is the only "standard" resolution which doesn't
>> have a 4:3 aspect ratio (and hence, non-square pixels on a monitor).
>
> The original Macintosh, btw, had a 3:2 monitor.
Did it? I remember a resolution of 512x384 pixels and and a very small
(9 inch?) 4:3 monitor, but I might be mistaken.
But in those times, square pixels were the exception: PCs had 640x200 or
720x348, most home computers 320x200, and the Atari ST and Amiga (a
little later) 640x400.
By "standard resolutions" I mean the resolutions in wide use today:
800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024, 1600x1200.
hp (who used to use 1024x400 on his 386 under Minix)
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Und *da* wurde also die Demokratie
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:32 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>720x348, most home computers 320x200, and the Atari ST and Amiga (a
>little later) 640x400.
Actually, the Amiga had several resolutions, of which the most useful for
those of us doing raytracing on one were 320x200 (HAM) and 320x400 (interlaced
HAM). The only way to get 640x400 was to run 16 colors or less (though
unlike PC hardware, the 16 colors were entirely arbitrary choices, and
separate programs could have different palettes on the screen at the same
time, with some caveats.)
Later, someone (NewTek?) came up with a way to display 12-bit full-color
images in 640x480 mode by doing some nasty stuff with the video coprocessor,
but even that was limited to 16 colors per scanline.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-06-13 16:26, Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:32 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>>720x348, most home computers 320x200, and the Atari ST and Amiga (a
>>little later) 640x400.
>
> Actually, the Amiga had several resolutions,
Yep. I meant the maximum "normal" resolution. Other computers could also
trade resolution against color depth.
> Later, someone (NewTek?) came up with a way to display 12-bit full-color
> images in 640x480 mode by doing some nasty stuff with the video coprocessor,
> but even that was limited to 16 colors per scanline.
Resetting color registers during horizontal retrace? I did that on the
Atari 800, too, and was very disappointed that it wasn't possible on the
PC.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Und *da* wurde also die Demokratie
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
