<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Lars,<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4A671593.7070905@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jack wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A view file is supposed to represent one (1) view. The last line of
the view file is considered to be the view spec. Considering a view
file to be a collection of multiple views is counter productive.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Regarding the idea, that there should always be only one view per view
file, this is a contradiction to the behaviour of core radiance tools.
rvu e.g. appends views to an existing view file, and I can cat a view
file with hundreds of views into rpict, which will happily render one by
one. I cannot use these view-files only in rad, as (only) this tool
reads only the last line of a view file.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that we have some disagreement here. Rpict reads a view file
and takes the last line of the file and uses that as the view
parameters to render. Rad is designed to pass named view parameters or
view files to rpict, if you want rad to do multiple views you can input
multiple "view=" lines in the rif file. By using "cat" you are using a
unix tool (outside the Radiance toolbox) to output each line of the
file to stdout, this is different than what rad does, and creates a
different expectation for what a viewfile contains, eg mapping of one
view file to one camera location vs mapping of one view file to many
camera locations.... Effectively a rif file serves as a way to group
multiple views to a particular octree definition, thus resulting in a
mapping of one file (a rif file) to many views by means of the rad tool.<br>
<br>
If you have only three groupings of views why not just create three
separate rif files?<br>
<br>
-Jack<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
</pre>
</body>
</html>