 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoo fr> wrote in
news:3f85e3d9@news.povray.org:
>
> message de
> news:11ebovccgk1ko4lrc5oejr5fnvjlhkro80@4ax.com...
>>
>> Not important, I am just curious.
>>
>> Is the current version of POV displaying each pixel after
>> calculation, or holding each pixel in a buffer, and then
>> displaying the entire line?
>
> In the Windows version, just move the cursor on the slider
> bar and you'll see the pixels crawling.
> It's quite helpful to see the "difficult" areas but it can
> become pretty addictive with slow renders, so I often turn
> off the display just to avoid the temptation... It's sort
> of stupid to shout "go, go, go, you can do it" to a slow
> pixel and then "ha, good boy, you made it" once it's
> rendered.
That disease seems pretty common then, I can vouch that I do
have the antibodies for it :)
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, Canada
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
AF <xxa### [at] notvalidxxnetdoorcom> wrote:
> POV docs are clear that the video card is not a part of the rendering
> speed equation. From the responses here, depending on the GUI, a few
> milli-seconds or in a few cases perhaps a few seconds might be saved
> with a really fast video card.
I'm not sure if that's so.
POV-Ray for Windows will render to a pixel buffer in memory and then
this buffer is copied to the display, that is the video card. This copying
process is a really tiny amount compared to the rendering time, but it still
is something (even though it might be 0.0001% of the rendering time). However,
I don't think it's the speed of the video card which affects this copying
speed, but the speed of the AGP bus (or PCI bus if you happen to have such
an old video card).
A superfast videocard is superfast when rendering triangles (which
coordinates and other info are *already* in the card's memory). This is
the so-called fill-rate. However, the video card can't affect the speed of
reading data from memory to the video card because it's the AGP bus speed
which limits it.
(Btw, AFAIK the fastest way of copying data from memory to the screen
is using a frame buffer eg. using DirectDraw. OTOH I don't think POV-Ray
would benefit from DirectDraw support at all.)
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <eupbov4h7jufaee50b6ipuig6if1e0jar8@4ax.com> , AF
<xxa### [at] notvalidxxnetdoorcom> wrote:
> One of the reasons I asked this question was to settle an argument.
> POV docs are clear that the video card is not a part of the rendering
> speed equation. From the responses here, depending on the GUI, a few
> milli-seconds or in a few cases perhaps a few seconds might be saved
> with a really fast video card.
No, it much more depends on the operating system and how much it abstracts
drawing. I.e. the most extreme case, the drawing could take place not even
on your system but a remote system.
In any case, the video card will not matter at all. The operating system
will do much more than just draw that little pixel. It has to factor in that
the section the pixel is drawn in for example isn't visible at all, among
many other things.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> In the Windows version, just move the cursor on the slider bar and you'll
> see the pixels crawling.
The unofficial MLPov provides an option (.ini option, afair) for
pixel-by-pixel display. It slows down renderding of fast scenes*,
but it is helpful for optimizing big scenes.
* : I guess that the image display is pretty unoptimised, but it isn't
meant to be fast anyway.
All in all, it would be nice to have an option to display pixels
every N pixels in official version, just like it used to be under
MS-DOS (even if it defaults to full line).
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f87f4e6@news.povray.org> , Fabien Mosen
<fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> All in all, it would be nice to have an option to display pixels
> every N pixels in official version, just like it used to be under
> MS-DOS (even if it defaults to full line).
The preview display really is the responsibility of the platform specific
frontened, this is the way it currently is and it is also they way it should
be.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's better NOT to be alone, because otherwise you would never stop watch
the screen!
Anyone experience defragmentation trance?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The unofficial MLPov provides an option (.ini option, afair) for
yes, in the windows version, you can put an option Lines=0 in the
[RenderWindow] section of pvengine.ini
but it's really a quick hack don't use it :-/
M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in
news:3f880275$1@news.povray.org:
> It's better NOT to be alone, because otherwise you would
> never stop watch the screen!
>
> Anyone experience defragmentation trance?
Yes, guilty
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, Canada
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:15:36 +0200, "Apache"
<apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>It's better NOT to be alone, because otherwise you would never stop watch
>the screen!
>
>Anyone experience defragmentation trance?
You bet! I used to watch "the caterpillars crawling" when I had a 40MB
with Stacker and used sdefrag on it. Fun, really. Modern defragging is
sooooo boring!
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in
news:e1spovgltiuu03c0k7qf46eu6h8r41pl65@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:15:36 +0200, "Apache"
><apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>>It's better NOT to be alone, because otherwise you would
>>never stop watch the screen!
>>
>>Anyone experience defragmentation trance?
>
> You bet! I used to watch "the caterpillars crawling" when I
> had a 40MB with Stacker and used sdefrag on it. Fun,
> really. Modern defragging is sooooo boring!
Especially when 1 square now-a-days represents 40meg :)
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, Canada
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
