From: yvonne l. <le...@sa...> - 2005-01-20 14:38:18
|
Hi everyone, I would like some confirmation or explanation about the differences I see, and the way I understand it. I was comparing the quality of images with different numbers of pixels along the length and width, e.g. ray 1000,750 I used the above command initially, because the highest display option on my Mac G3 is apparently 1024 x 768 I also decided to try higher numbers like 1200,1000 and 1500,1200. I also did the default option of just typing 'ray' without specifying pixels. The default ray command gives the the poorest quality image by visual comparison. The 1024 x 768 gave quite acceptable quality. But I was surprised that I could create and save images with higher pixel values than the apparent display limits. There was a small improvement in quality in these too, but the image size was much bigger. Furthermore, in one case, the image was slightly magnified/'zoomed in' when compared to the default, and the right and left edges were 'cropped'. But the quality was still better than the 1000x750 image. I suppose I could have kept increasing the numbers of pixels, but the tradeoff would be unacceptably large images. And the reason for all this is ... ... is a *.png image created with ray 1000,750 going to be good enough for publication standards? Is there much benefit in going higher? what causes the limits, if any? Yvonne |