Hi Folks:

In a recent benchmarking discussion it was suggested that one way to
"equalize" (in terms of testing times) older machines and increasingly fast
machines-- all the way up to supercomputers-- was to simply make the image
larger for the hotties.  Then use a correction factor.

The thinking goes:  Use a standard image, let a 486/33 render it at 320x240,
and let the monster render it at 320,000x240,000.    If they both take
exactly 5 minutes, say, the Hottie Monster is 1,000,000 times as efficient.
(One million times the number of pixels.)

My concern with this approach is that while we are scaling the image in two
dimensions, we are calculating lighting effects in THREE dimensions.

Mark Wagner, who mentioned the scaling approach, feels that antialiasing
would skew the results.

My question is:  What OTHER functions WILL or MIGHT make the compute times
go longer than the scaling factor for 2D (area) and more toward 3D (volume).

Armed with suggestions, I'd like to conduct tests.

Matt

Post a reply to this message

I can think of no method. The switch to a different scene file for the
faster machines to render seems the only way. The mere concept of a
overall same-scene/same-render for all machines is itself a thing of
potential extinction due to the need for a fast enough rendering to
take place within a reasonable time for the slower computers. A
nonsense kind of scene file might be okay. One in which the raytrace
does not involve any 3D in the usual way. Like a 2D plane for
instance, and then do the resolution per computer configuration idea.
The obvious wrong about such is the lack of raytraced objects and
lighting in the typically used sort of fashion. I'm not sure how the
simple render of a textured z plane fairs as far as those raytrace
calculations go. It might remove that incalculable part however. I
know a resolution shift alone on the one computer I have is somewhat
figurable, I just don't know how much so myself.

Bob

Matt Swarm <mic### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:37bf4fee@news.povray.org...
> Hi Folks:
>
> In a recent benchmarking discussion it was suggested that one way to
> "equalize" (in terms of testing times) older machines and
increasingly fast
> machines-- all the way up to supercomputers-- was to simply make the
image
> larger for the hotties.  Then use a correction factor.
>
> The thinking goes:  Use a standard image, let a 486/33 render it at
320x240,
> and let the monster render it at 320,000x240,000.    If they both
take
> exactly 5 minutes, say, the Hottie Monster is 1,000,000 times as
efficient.
> (One million times the number of pixels.)
>
> My concern with this approach is that while we are scaling the image
in two
> dimensions, we are calculating lighting effects in THREE dimensions.
>
> Mark Wagner, who mentioned the scaling approach, feels that
antialiasing
> would skew the results.
>
> My question is:  What OTHER functions WILL or MIGHT make the compute
times
> go longer than the scaling factor for 2D (area) and more toward 3D
(volume).
>
> Armed with suggestions, I'd like to conduct tests.
>
> Matt
>
>

Post a reply to this message