 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PS. Do you think changing my firewall to allow incomming connections
> will make any positive difference?
In BitTorrent, you may connect to other people, or other people may
connect to you. If mostly everybody else didn't bother setting his
firewall, then you won't be able to connect to them, so let them connect
to you! :)
Also, did you try the sheep pack?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> scott wrote:
>> If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the
>> port that the software is using to speed things up.
>
> Right, OK.
>
> I wonder if I can configure that...
>
Oops missed this post.
Yes, you can configure the incoming port on the screensaver options.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the
>>> port that the software is using to speed things up.
>>
>> Right, OK.
>>
>> I wonder if I can configure that...
>>
> Oops missed this post.
>
> Yes, you can configure the incoming port on the screensaver options.
No no - I mean I wonder if my [hardware] firewall is configurable...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I left my PC running all of yesterday, and it managed to download
exactly 350 sheep. My viewing experience is now significantly more
interesting.
I find that much of the time, the action is too fast. There's a lot
happening, and you can't really watch it properly because it's too fast.
It would be nice if the transformations were slower so you could
appreciate the level of detail present. (OTOH, that would require more
render time, bandwidth and disk space...)
Also, often you'll see a transformation, it transforms into something
for a split second, and then instantly begins transforming into
something else before you even get to look at it properly. Which is
quite annoying.
And finally, often you get a slow moving loop, and then a very abrupt
change as it goes into another rapid morph. That's quite jarring.
However, overall it's rather fun to watch. Most of the time it hardly
looks like segments of pre-rendered video spliced together. It looks
like a single, long, fluid motion. (Shame about the low sample density
in places...) Many of the looping images are quite interesting and/or
beautiful. A rather larger number are quite bland. Overall it's quite
pleasing.
Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
Oh, and during all of yesterday, my PC rendered 2 frames.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote?
> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
Why 15! ?
For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
and not X! ?
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> Why 15! ?
>
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
> and not X! ?
Hmm. Your knowledge of combinatorics clearly exceeds mine
considerably... :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> Why 15! ?
>
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
> and not X! ?
Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense. A->B and
B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible
combinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
>> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
>> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>
> There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.
My point is that there seem to be several morphs for each loop, meaning
that the number of morphs dawfs the number of actual loops...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense.
Yes they can. But MPEG-2 doesn't make that real easy...
> A->B and
> B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible
> combinations.
They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must be.
(However, ES seems to implement it this way.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
