|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 11:36:48
Message: <47de9e20$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> In fact, I think if preview is off, it only needs width*2 memory (plus
>> width*something used by libpng), not width*height.
>
> I believe pov3.6 and earlier wrote each rendered scanline to the
> image file and then dropped it. Thus it required memory only for one
> scanline at a time, which allowed rendering enormous images even in
> computers with a small amount of memory.
It definitely needs *two* scanlines, not one. Antialiasing requires
comparing the pixel color with the one above ;) I remember seeing that
in the code.
I just didn't know if somewhere *else* in the code, POV kept the whole
image in memory. Thanks for confirming it doesn't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 11:43:52
Message: <47de9fc8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
>
Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.
> Sum of available disk space on these hosts: 8662.28 GB
> Sum of memory on these hosts: 211062.96 MB
Bah, no aggregate information about CPU power...
These *four* 8-core Xeon computers seem too similar. Might be duplicate
entries (same computer)... *gets into admin interface* Nope! Different
hostnames.
How big are your sources? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.
Ooo, I didn't know you were a farmer?
> These *four* 8-core Xeon computers seem too similar. Might be duplicate
> entries (same computer)... *gets into admin interface* Nope! Different
> hostnames.
>
> How big are your sources? :)
About 3 KB?
Actually, reminds me of something I saw this morning. Some guy saying
there's basically "no point" in adding more CPUs to the Folding@Home
project, because a single GPU is something like 50x faster while using
less electricity...
All I need know is for that guy who's writing a CUBA backing for GHC to
finish his PhD, and then I can implement my own raytracer in Haskell and
achieve world domination. Wahahahahaha!! >:-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 12:10:43
Message: <47dea613$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.
>
> Ooo, I didn't know you were a farmer?
I meant "render farm"...
>> How big are your sources? :)
>
> About 3 KB?
Send me them and I'll see what comes out of the Xeons.
> Actually, reminds me of something I saw this morning. Some guy saying
> there's basically "no point" in adding more CPUs to the Folding@Home
> project, because a single GPU is something like 50x faster while using
> less electricity...
There's many processes done by Folding@Home that can only be done in
CPUs. GPUs are the fastest but least flexible (= can run a limited
subset of algorithms) for the Folding project.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 13:04:53
Message: <47deb2c5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
hope it's not another RSOCP! ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v7
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 14:39:11
Message: <47dec8df$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 40 megapixel? Hmm how much RAM is it eating? Last time I tried an image
> around that big, POV-Ray crashed.
Virtual size 144 MB.
Private bytes 98 MB.
Working set 102 MB.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ...you ask POV-Ray to draw a 40 megapixel image, it renders at roughly 2
> pixels per second, and you calculate how long it will take to render.
>
> And then feel glad you're sitting down. (!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?
Assuming 16:9 proportions, that's like 8400x4725, or 28"x15" at 300DPI.
Or, if its a 4:3 image, then it's like 7300x5475, or 24"x18" at 300DPI.
That's a REALLY nice print :)
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 15:16:01
Message: <47ded181$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
I guess most other POVers didn't think it was anything strange :)
I *have* tried such size of image with William Tracy's image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 16:28:49
Message: <47dee291@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this...
hey, I don't argue with nuts. If he wishes to dump his CPU on a
year-long render, go ahead. :)
Perhaps he's willing to break the Guiness record on "Most pointless and
wasteful povray render ever". Mine was just a 3 day render of some
glass cups... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
>
> ....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?
hmm, I recently did a 6500 by 4800 version of the bloodcells in the hall
of fame with the intention of putting it up as a poster in the lab. And
that is still only 150 dpi at approximately A0 ;) . I admit it only took
306 hours (or just under 2 weeks). BTW anyone know who this 'NEWT' is,
in case he wants to have that render?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |