Ah, if I only had another beefy machine or some sort of render farm. Actually enjoying downtime--usually render when I'm asleep. Had a fine dinner, tasty gin drink, and caught up on reading. So, Bigrobot and Flickerstreak, thanks a heck of alot for info. Scale (camera) seems to have worked fine for the bottom part of image--I think this is why that feature is there. No distortion like +FOV would have produced. In fact, same idea (I ended up with setting scale to 66.667 and render size to 1:1.5) got me most of the left side--I think. Still rendering. You're saying that pan x,y (whichever) will give me those extra 200 pix or so. If so, that's probably easier than what I'm doing, because I could have reset, smaller, the viewport just to render that part or shot it to disk. This all smells like the basis of a good tutorial. I discovered a bug doing it my way, which is this: Change scale of camera by +2/3 or double. Set render ratio to 1:1.5 or 1:2 Start a render and let go one pass Pause it Zoom out to fit Define Plop render Render that This worked for the bottom, but here's the bug: If I multitask (like I'm doing now), when I go back to bryce, the zoomed out render with the plop going on is all distorted. But! It's working fine. You just can't see it, and it looks all messed up (aspect). Like a spolied child, Bryce wants all of your attention.... Forgetting the bug, apparently the camera scale, which I never messed with before, is essentially sorta orthoginal (sp?) vs. FOV. FOV would have been a new perspective. Scale won't let me get at some areas way beyond the FOV. That's where I'll be using pan as you suggest. This is all pretty darn confusing. If I "pan" a real-life camera, like it's on a tripod, I will get a different perspective. I've been trying to imagine what happens if I jump 10 feet to the left with a camera all day--that sounds like what Bryce's "pan" does, no? --Snazzy