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
