"to boldly go..."  yes, thanks!  All I ever got from ST was already dubbed to
portuguese...

"These are the calculations of the raytracer POV-Ray"... :)

"Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:
> No, Nemesis, not quite. But this way:
>
> "Sven's photon maps, the final frontier. These are the calculations of the
> raytracer POV-Ray. Its five-year renders: To explore strange new crashes. To
> seek out new pictures and new render arts. To boldly go where no render
> program has gone before."
>
> ORIGINAL
> Starship Enterprise (Star Trek):
> "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship
> Enterprise. Its five-year mission: To explore strange new worlds. To seek
> out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone
> before."
>
> Sven
>
>
>
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:web.479fe300af2cf505e094060@news.povray.org...
> > "Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:
> >> You passed the crash borderline and are on unknown ground now.
> >
> > Corageosly going where no other raytracer ever dared...
> >
> >> That will
> >> become the mother of all photon map files!
> >
> > ah, the 1 GB photon map!
> >

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas, if you want to post the pictureinside the images newsgroup, please 
go ahead! i don't mind it at all! I owe you a lot of thanks!

Remember, I still need the photon map file.

Thanks again,

Sven

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski escribió:
> Nicolas, if you want to post the pictureinside the images newsgroup, please 
> go ahead! i don't mind it at all! I owe you a lot of thanks!

I rendered a 640x480 too, took a few hours :) Posting it now.

> Remember, I still need the photon map file.

I already sent it to you... Maybe it got filtered?

Post a reply to this message

Jan Dvorak wrote:
> You might decide to shoot image_width*image_height*some_constant 
> photons. Some_constant==1 might work well but feel free to increase for 
> high quality or decrease for faster render. Use the count keyword and 
> watch POV-ray do its best.

That's a good idea, linking the photon quality to the image resolution. 
  I would assume that if you find a good ratio for a lower resolution, 
it would tend to be a  good ratio for a higher one as well?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> "Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:
>> You passed the crash borderline and are on unknown ground now.
> 
> Corageosly going where no other raytracer ever dared...
> 
>> That will
>> become the mother of all photon map files!
> 
> ah, the 1 GB photon map!

Been there, done that, crashed my PC at 2Gb utilized by POV-Ray alone :)

Note to self: 3Gb in your system doesn't get around the fact that most 
XP programs are only able to address 2...

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> nemesis wrote:
>> "Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:
>>> You passed the crash borderline and are on unknown ground now.
>> 
>> Corageosly going where no other raytracer ever dared...
>> 
>>> That will
>>> become the mother of all photon map files!
>> 
>> ah, the 1 GB photon map!
> 
> Been there, done that, crashed my PC at 2Gb utilized by POV-Ray alone :)
> 
> Note to self: 3Gb in your system doesn't get around the fact that most
> XP programs are only able to address 2...
> 
Addendum to note: Having 8GB in your system doesn't prevent Povray from
still having to use the swap space.
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Been there, done that, crashed my PC at 2Gb utilized by POV-Ray alone :)
> >
> > Note to self: 3Gb in your system doesn't get around the fact that most
> > XP programs are only able to address 2...
> >
> Addendum to note: Having 8GB in your system doesn't prevent Povray from
> still having to use the swap space.

you guys are nuts! :P

Post a reply to this message

Chambers, Ger:

Thanks for that information. I thought until now, the operating system 
handles the RAM, and the programs just forward their RAM requests to Windows 
which would give them, what they need.

I don't knew that programs self address the RAM.

Bad to hear that software developers don't want to work with higher RAM 
addresses. Thought, if RAM is available, the programs could reach it 
dynamically, independent from intented borderlines (2 GB).

Thanks for the information, greetings,

Sven



"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:47a172b4@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
>> "Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:
>>> You passed the crash borderline and are on unknown ground now.
>>
>> Corageosly going where no other raytracer ever dared...
>>
>>> That will
>>> become the mother of all photon map files!
>>
>> ah, the 1 GB photon map!
>
> Been there, done that, crashed my PC at 2Gb utilized by POV-Ray alone :)
>
> Note to self: 3Gb in your system doesn't get around the fact that most XP 
> programs are only able to address 2...
>
> -- 
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Bad to hear that software developers don't want to work with higher RAM 
> addresses. Thought, if RAM is available, the programs could reach it 
> dynamically, independent from intented borderlines (2 GB).

The issue is that the numbers used to address memory get too big for the
processor to handle. 32-bit pointers simply cannot reference memory
beyond 4 GB -- you need a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating
system and 64-bit applications to go beyond that.

Now, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the 32-bit version of
Windows XP can't use more than 2GB *total* for the entire system.
(That's 4 GB minus 2 GB worth of addresses hard-coded in to refer to
hardware peripherals...) Microsoft helpfully released a patch that makes
memory beyond 2 GB show up as available in the information pane, but XP
still can't actually use it. :-D

Vista can handle 4 GB just fine, but that is offset by the operating
system itself using twice as much memory...

(Nice time to switch to Linux, BTW. We've had a 64-bit version of the OS
available much longer than Microsoft, and have had time to work most of
the compatibility kinks out!)

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when all your browser bookmarks
have something to do with raytracing.
    -- Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo

Post a reply to this message

"Sven Littkowski" <sven [] jamaica-focus [] com> wrote:

> Chambers, Ger:
> 
> Thanks for that information. I thought until now, the operating system
> handles the RAM, and the programs just forward their RAM requests to
> Windows which would give them, what they need.
> 
> I don't knew that programs self address the RAM.
> 
> Bad to hear that software developers don't want to work with higher RAM
> addresses. Thought, if RAM is available, the programs could reach it
> dynamically, independent from intented borderlines (2 GB).
> 
> Thanks for the information, greetings,
> 
> Sven
> 
> 

Sven,

I think you have things mixed up. Any modern program lets the operating
system handle the memory. For a program to bypass the OS and try and do the
memory management itself is a sure way to disaster.
The difference is that the older Windows versions don't access anything
above 3GB because they can't address it. It's out of their range. The newer
versions do address it, and in my case with 64bit linux 2^128 bytes is the
theoretical limit (340282366920938463463374607431768211456 which is a LOT).
Having programs go for the "higher" ram addresses is old style DOS
programming.

And as an aside, I do have 8GB RAM and 12GB swap and still manage to have
povray crash with an "out of memory" error :)

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message