"Le Forgeron" <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:3D6### [at] freefr...
> Warp wrote:
> > Nowadays keeping the entire image in memory (as an option)
> > would not be such a burden as it was 10 years ago and thus all kind of
> > extra passes would be possible.
> >
> Handling two lines of 10000 pixels is reasonnable, keeping a whole
> picture in memory is not. Doing a two pass rendering (no AA, then AA)
> might be reasonnable, if you use an intermediate picture file.
>


    Why the need to keep it memory - are their really any modern computer
systems that don't allow complete random read-write access to files ?
    Think about Windows virtual memory files and you'll see there's no need
to actually keep the whole image in physical memory...

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message