Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 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!

  IMHO, in the case you proposed, one of the computers can finish before 
the other, because the first half renders fast or viceversa, so one of the 
computers becomes iddle while the other is still rendering, and there are 
still pending frames. With the other solution (starting at both ends), no 
computer is iddle: both finish at the same time, so they finish the task 
before undoubtely (except in perfectly balanced animations where all the 
frames take the same amount of time to render).
 
> 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.

  Again wrong, IMHO. Warp means perfect distribution of rendering power not 
perfect distribution of pixels rendered. Again, starting at both ends 
eliminates the posibility of on CPU finish before the other and becoming 
iddle.

  Of course, I always do this techniques "manually", and never would have 
requested a new feature myself... ;)


-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message