Le 05/10/2010 14:43, fillibar a écrit :
>> Might I ask on what display are you using a 41000 x 41000 picture ?
>> It took more than a 4m x 3m advertisement poster with the fine details
>> of handheld publication (10 pixels/mm).
> 
> The image is a very small galaxy of the following dimensions,
> ~41,000x41,000x10,000ly. Our current star grouping has ~12M coordinates (stars
> only) which are being placed as single unit (1ly) white spheres. I am mainly
> trying to generate the image for a top view. While I am normally rendering it at
> a max of 12800x10240 (which takes ~10hrs to finish rendering) the even larger
> image was desired so we could break down the exact locations better and allow
> extreme zooming to a specific coordinate (or at least the 2D representation of
> it).
> 
> So basically it was an idea to get a ~1ly:1pixel representation of the galaxy in
> the image.
> 
> 
My inquiring mind is satisfied. I hope you are using +Q0 and wonder
about any AA setting or removal (sub-sampling might just be the right
thing, without heuristic). With an orthographic camera I suppose.
Also, you might replace spheres with viewing axis-aligned boxes (with
+Q0, not an issue of shading and as long as the picture resolution is
less than the coordinates, a spherical or boxed pixels is the same), it
might save some square root computations. I guess the parsing of the 12M
is not funny.

Notice that the final density would be 1 white pixel per 140 pixels.
(at 41000x41000), if there is no black borders.

-- 
Real software engineers work from 9 to 5, because that is<br/>
the way the job is described in the formal spec.  Working<br/>
late would feel like using an undocumented external procedure.

Post a reply to this message