 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] erols com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
