"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!
>

Huh? I think you're missing the point. As far as I can see, starting one render
from the last frame and another from the first frame is the only way to ensure
the best distribution of work. Take 16 random numbers between 1 and 100 and
place them in sequence:

34, 43,11, 76, 32, 2, 23, 73, 83, 23, 76, 63, 31,63,68,65

Numbers 1 to 8 add to 294, 8 to 16 add to 472. Without knowing the render time
of each frame prior to rendering, the only way I can ensure that both renders
finish at the same time is to start one render at one end of the sequence, and
the other render at the other end of the sequence.


> >   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.

Distribute perfectly in terms of time, not in terms of percentage of image
rendered.

Post a reply to this message