"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dd3a7ab@news.povray.org...
> In article <3dd38dbe$1@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk>
> wrote:
>
>
> You may have noticed that I gave _two_ ways to do it.  Either even and odd
> frames or splitting in the middle.
>

But neither of these work if, in the case of even and odd, alternate images take
significantly different amount of times to render (odd frames use media, even
don't), and in the case of splitting in the middle, if the second half of the
sequence is significantly slower or faster than the first half (or, needless to
say, if one PC is slower than the other).

The point with starting at opposite ends is that if the final frame takes as
long as all the other frames put together (either because it's running on a
slower machine, or just becuase of the nature of the image), then one
render-instance renders only one image, and the other render-instance renders
the rest.

I think the misunderstanding here is that a) I don't propose that each
render-instance should render the same number of frames and b) I don't propose
that either render-instance "knows" when to stop - it would be up to the user to
note that instance-a had rendered images 1-20 and that instance-b had rendered
images 30-21 and that therefore the render could now be stopped.

Nor, btw, do I propose that this would lead to an "exact" distribution - one
instance would invariably finish its final frame before the other, whatever
frame that might be.

Post a reply to this message