"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dd37fa3@news.povray.org...
> So you suggest one renders the even and another the odd indexed frames?  Or
> do you suggest that the beginning and the end of a sequence take long and
> you divide them such that one renders from beginning to the middle of the
> sequence and the other from the end to the middle of the sequence?  Why
> would it have to work backwards in either case?  The speed would be the same
> regardless of sequence direction!
>
> >   Btw, the same idea can be applied when rendering a single image in
> > a computer with two processors: One processor renders normally, the other
> > in reverse order. When they reach the same pixel, they stop. This distributes
> > the rendering effort perfectly, regardless of the image.
>
> No, this would not distribute perfectly regardless of the image except
> trivial cases.  In fact it would be very far away from perfect distribution
> as each and every pixel can take a "random" amount of time.

You are assuming that both my computers are as fast as each other. They're not. One is
much
slower, but I don't want to have to calculate/guestimate how many frames to give each
PC.

Andy Cocker

Post a reply to this message