 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine wrote:
> > - 5x faster rendering and parsing
>
> there is a solution for this right? getting a computer that is 5X
> faster :)
Ya know, if trends continue, we should have 16Ghz home PCs by 2006.
Although some say we are pushing the limits of what silicon-based chips
can take... (Fortunately we'll have copper-based and photonic chips soon
:) *crossing fingers*)
And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
> growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
sqrt(x)...
But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
works out to over 130 GB.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>
> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
> > growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
>
> And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
> sqrt(x)...
>
> But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
> making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
> works out to over 130 GB.
Hmm, i guestimate 111 GB :) (900KB per frame .png average. Plus then
you need space to compress that on to. (And at least a couple of iterations
of test mpegs too...)
My new machine (coming next week, dual P3/933 pant pant) only has a 73GB SCSI.
I guess no feature films for me. :)
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dick Balaska wrote:
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> >
> > David Fontaine wrote:
> > >
> > > And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage
> > > capacity is growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
> >
> > And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
> > sqrt(x)...
> >
> > But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
> > making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
> > works out to over 130 GB.
>
> Hmm, i guestimate 111 GB :) (900KB per frame .png average. Plus then
> you need space to compress that on to. (And at least a couple of
> iterations of test mpegs too...)
>
> My new machine (coming next week, dual P3/933 pant pant) only has a
> 73GB SCSI. I guess no feature films for me. :)
You can always zip down the png's. I was calculating based on
TGAs, which zip down to about 40% of original size.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3996F731.B984158D@erols.com> , John VanSickle
<van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
> You can always zip down the png's. I was calculating based on
> TGAs, which zip down to about 40% of original size.
The PNG image format already uses ZIP compression!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
> making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
> works out to over 130 GB.
>
You have to store scenes as well. As someone from Pixar recently wrote
in c.g.r.renderman, average scene description size is 500 MB and big
scene is 2 GB (compressed!) per frame!. Add to this texture maps, which
could take even more space. This of course applies to RIB format and
perhaps POV-Ray will not require such amount of data.
(I think that you can't avoid texture images, if you want to render fast
and good scenes: ARM describes, how folks in Pixar at first wanted to
create all textures as procedural, but this proved to be too
inefficient).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> In article <3996F731.B984158D@erols.com> , John VanSickle
> <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
>
> > You can always zip down the png's. I was calculating based on
> > TGAs, which zip down to about 40% of original size.
>
> The PNG image format already uses ZIP compression!
Learn something new every day...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
: Learn something new every day...
How did you think png images are smaller than tga images?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3997f82f@news.povray.org...
| John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
| : Learn something new every day...
|
| How did you think png images are smaller than tga images?
I know I've zip-filed them before and essentially got no further
compression.
Testing this out real quick using the maximum setting in my zipping program
I get the following.
Targa files (uncompressed) will go to about 0.4 times their original size,
while compressed TGA starts out at half that of uncompressed TGA then goes
to about the same size as the other. Jpg might actually increase in file
size. And indeed PNG remains the same (as seen through Windows Explorer
stats).
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
> : Learn something new every day...
>
> How did you think png images are smaller than tga images?
I've never used png's, so I didn't know they were smaller.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
