 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
I've to render a very big image. What format output file will be the best?
I can't render it using .BMP.
Thanks,
Oleguer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oleguer Vilella <ole### [at] infonegocio com> wrote:
> I've to render a very big image. What format output file will be the best?
> I can't render it using .BMP.
The best for what?
If you are talking about file size there's only one option. (I don't
know what else you could be talking about...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oleguer Vilella wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've to render a very big image. What format output file will be the best?
> I can't render it using .BMP.
My favourite is png.
It's well supported and has good lossless compression.
A Photo of 6000 by 3000 pixel for example has a size of
7,7 MB. Rendered image size should be around this.
Sebastian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sebastian H. <van### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> A Photo of 6000 by 3000 pixel for example has a size of
> 7,7 MB.
It's not reasonable to say that a photo of a certain resolution takes
x mebabytes of space as a png because the compression ratio depends a
lot on the actual contents of the image. Some content compresses much
better than others.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sebastian H. <van### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>>A Photo of 6000 by 3000 pixel for example has a size of
>>7,7 MB.
>
>
> It's not reasonable to say that a photo of a certain resolution takes
> x mebabytes of space as a png because the compression ratio depends a
> lot on the actual contents of the image. Some content compresses much
> better than others.
>
You're right.
But it gives an idea about the file dimensions (kB?,MB?,GB?!).
A Photo in general contains patterns that dont't
compress well lossless. I guess a simple CGI-graphic
like the RSOCP would compressed be smaller because of
single color fields and that.
I should have been more clear on this.
But that's not the point here.
I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
[e.g. Uneven scaling thread].
That may be just me! Therefore I for myself try to give
simple answers although they may be not completely correct
in a mathematical provable way (I couldn't do this anyway).
This is my policy "as beeing just a PoV amateur"
and I don't want to start a flame war on that!
Regards,
Sebastian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sebastian H. wrote:
>
> But that's not the point here.
> I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
> bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
> [e.g. Uneven scaling thread].
I think you should bear in mind two things:
- an answer that exceeds what the original poster was asking for isn't
bad - others are reading things as well and might have use for a more
elaborate answer.
- it is not always clear from the question what the poster needs and you
often can't assume the poster really whats to know what he asks for (the
famous 'is it possible to...?'-questions for example) - see:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/ (Last updated 24 Jul. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sebastian H. <van### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> But that's not the point here.
> I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
> bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
It doesn't introduce any complicatedness to the text if you add
clarifying words like "typically", "about", "approximately", etc.
That is, instead of saying "an image of x*y pixels takes n kilobytes
as a png" it's more accurate, yet in no way more difficult to understand,
to say "for example an image of x*y takes typically about n to m
kilobytes as a png".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sebastian H. <van### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>>But that's not the point here.
>>I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
>>bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
>
>
> It doesn't introduce any complicatedness to the text if you add
> clarifying words like "typically", "about", "approximately", etc.
>
> That is, instead of saying "an image of x*y pixels takes n kilobytes
> as a png" it's more accurate, yet in no way more difficult to understand,
> to say "for example an image of x*y takes typically about n to m
> kilobytes as a png".
>
Ok right, shame on me, I was too lazy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sebastian H. wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Sebastian H. <van### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>>
>>> But that's not the point here.
>>> I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
>>> bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't introduce any complicatedness to the text if you add
>> clarifying words like "typically", "about", "approximately", etc.
>>
>> That is, instead of saying "an image of x*y pixels takes n kilobytes
>> as a png" it's more accurate, yet in no way more difficult to understand,
>> to say "for example an image of x*y takes typically about n to m
>> kilobytes as a png".
>>
>
> Ok right, shame on me, I was too lazy.
... to check what I wrote...
Sebastian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Sebastian H. wrote:
>
>>
>> But that's not the point here.
>> I got the impression some answers in this group are sometime a
>> bit too sophistivated to help new user with a concrete problem
>> [e.g. Uneven scaling thread].
>
>
> I think you should bear in mind two things:
>
> - an answer that exceeds what the original poster was asking for isn't
> bad - others are reading things as well and might have use for a more
> elaborate answer.
>
> - it is not always clear from the question what the poster needs and you
> often can't assume the poster really whats to know what he asks for (the
> famous 'is it possible to...?'-questions for example) - see:
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> Christoph
>
Thanks for the link.
Go for it...
I agree with what you said.
I remebered the mentioned case because I just had to smile
while reading the thread.
It was a situation where a newbie asks a question which
ends up in two pros walking away having a nice discussion
and the newbie stands with his two half-spheres in his
hands and a big questionmark above his head how to shape
them more like Go pieces.
After all he got no concrete help (I can't blame, I didn't
help by myself).
This is the impression that left about the mentioned thread.
Sebastian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
