|
|
On 10/29/2009 8:28 AM, clipka wrote:
> With 16 bit depth, however, you can represent...
>
> ... the entire earth's topology (including ocean floors) to a vertical
> resolution of ca. 30 cm, or 1'0".
>
> ... the entire earth's continental topology (i.e. above ocean level) to
> a vertical resolition of about 15 cm, or 6".
>
> ... a section of the Grand Canyon to a vertical resolution of about 2,5
> cm, or 1".
Artifacts would be noticable if, say, your were rendering an image of a
lizard with the Grand Canyon visible in the background. But, you're
right, that level of precision wouldn't make much of a difference in the
majority of heightfields. It *would* make a difference if you wanted
smooth transitions between scales on a spherical, isosurface model of
the Earth. But isosurfaces aren't based on bitmap data...
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
> Artifacts would be noticable if, say, your were rendering an image of a
> lizard with the Grand Canyon visible in the background.
Man, you'd need some kind of supercomputer to model the entire grand canyon
in enough detail to do a close-up of a lizard on it...
Use some kind of level of detail scheme (ie further away parts are modelled
at lower resolution) - then you'll find that 16 bits of vertical resolution
is plenty for the scene you mention.
Post a reply to this message
|
|