 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:44:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null>
wrote:
>
>Anyway, does it look classy enough yet? ;-)
Yes
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You're not missing much...
>
>> This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I
>> managed to make a working nomogram.
>
> What I don't get is why you posted it here, really.
Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?
Because they might amuse somebody...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wondering how long that animation is going to take to complete?
Don't wonder any more! Look at my shiny nomogram! :-D
Mark the number of frames to be rendered on the right-hand scale. Mark
approximately how many seconds each frame takes to render on the
left-hand scale. Draw a straight line through both these points. The
place where this line crosses the middle scale tells you how long your
render will take. I even did all the hard work of converting between
seconds, minutes, hours and, yes, days - because we all know renders
*do* take days!
In case you missed it: I am *seriously* pleased with myself right now.
Most especially, I spent _literally_ hours fidgetting and fussing over
the tick marks on the scale. The right-hand scale just goes up in units
of 10 (with only integers marked), but the other two scales are times,
and times go up in multiples of 60 and 24 - which don't have a
particularly simple ratio. I spent ages and ages seeing how tight the
tick marks can be to still fit the labels, changing the tick widths to
try to make the scales as unambiguous as possible, and generally trying
to make it look pretty. I think I'm quite happy with the result...
Oh, and by the way... I'm doing a series of renders with 250 frames
each. So at 5 seconds/frame, it takes about 20 minutes, if the render
time rises to a mere 15 seconds/frame, it will take an entire hour to
complete, and by the time you exceed 30 seconds/frame, you're talking
about multiple hours.
The really nice thing is that I can also read it backwards and see that
if I leave my PC running for a 10 your day, each frame must take less
than 2 minutes if the entire render is to be finished by the time I get
home.
Note that the Electric Sheep system seems to spend about 15 minutes *per
frame*. That means that a 140-frame "sheep" constitutes about 1.5 *days*
of computer time. Eeeps!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nomogram-rendertime2.pdf' (11 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> I don't get it.
>
>> You're not missing much...
>
>> This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I
>> managed to make a working nomogram.
>
> What I don't get is why you posted it here, really. Is it something
> interesting, amusing, informative or in some way special?
It informs us that he is still programming in postscript. That is in a
sense amusing in itself I would say. Many people may not have heard of
nomograms or at least not recently, so it points to an interesting
concept for some of us. You may doubt the value of nomograms in the age
of computers and you are probably right in doing so, but most of the
things here have not much intrinsic value apart from amusement of the
maker and those that see or read it. I grant that it may have been
better at postscript.off-topic but p.o-t is good enough.
> What's the purpose of posting it?
And don't forget the value of the showing off of unusual and cruel skills.
> Is there anything there anyone can get something
> from? I just don't understand.
>
BTW did you realise the recursive value of your post? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?
Maybe because this is a POV-Ray news server, and people who visit this
server usually are interested in POV-Ray renderings?
> Because they might amuse somebody...
I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
some simple numbers and lines.
Imagine I made a post like this here:
---------------------
Hey, I just wrote a C program which prints numbers from 1 to 100, with
10 numbers at each line:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i;
for(i = 1; i <= 100; ++i)
{
printf("%i ", i);
if(i % 10 == 0) printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
---------------------
Ok, so? Why would that be of any interest to anybody? Why would I want
to make such a post? I just don't get it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2008 03:20:22 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?
>
> Maybe because this is a POV-Ray news server, and people who visit this
>server usually are interested in POV-Ray renderings?
>
>> Because they might amuse somebody...
>
> I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
>some simple numbers and lines.
Lay off him Warp, and I for one find these things interesting, not
amusing. I've got a small collection of slide rules that I think are
intrinsically beautiful. So just looking at the marks on the paper is
intellectually satisfying, to me. I had forgotten about nomograms
until Andrew posted. I'm glad that he reminded me.
You really don't understand what "information" is at a conceptual
level, do you?
Also this is off topic and it would be a pretty boring party if
everyone talked about the same thing. If Andrew's posts annoy you just
blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings. Your tirades
against him are beginning (?) to sound like bullying.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Also this is off topic and it would be a pretty boring party if
> everyone talked about the same thing. If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings. Your tirades
> against him are beginning (?) to sound like bullying.
>
Seconded.
OMG I've just posted a "Me too" ;-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
(And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
>> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
>
> Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
>extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
>or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
>
What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
he won't be able to post.
Unless you are talking about your own feelings.
> (And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
>interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)
That is less true here than on other sites IMO. The vast majority of
posters here are good natured and fair, again IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> >> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
> >
> > Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
> >extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
> >or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
> >
> What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
> blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
> he won't be able to post.
I wasn't implying anything else. Read again.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
