 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Both NTFS and VFS in theory support up to 8 exabytes on a partition.
Actually wikipedia claims that NTFS supports partitions and files of
16 exabytes. That's a bit better than ReiserFS which supports "only"
8 terabytes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If you generate a PNG image without any fancy filtering, then you don't
>> need any extra memory except for the DEFLATE compressor. But usually PNG
>> files use filtering to increase compression. (I don't know, but I'd
>> *hope* libpng provides a way to control this...) If filtering, you may
>> need the previous row of pixels [only].
>
> I think PNG has options to filter with the previous row, the previous
> column, or both. I assume that if you choose to filter with the previous
> column only, you don't need to store the previous row of pixels in memory
> at all. (I don't know if libpng optimizes in this way, but at least in
> theory I think it could be possible to implement png compression like
> that.)
You need to store the previous row in POV-Ray anyway, to know if you need to
antialias the current pixel :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you all for your posts. Quite an insight.
> (BTW, why did you post this in povray.off-topic?)
Because it was just an idle thought. I saw some pov-rendered posters. I then
pondered upon resolution and pixel-sizes for an A0-poster and wondered how
far you can realistically go. And how long it would take.
I realize of course that render-time is dependent on the scene to be
rendered. I just hoped to get to know if render-time behaves proportionally
to the numer of pixels to be rendered or if render time increases
exponentially with the number of pixels at really high resolutions.
Do you have any experience?
Furthermore I did not wish to bother anybody with this who might be occupied
with productive work. Whoever is browsing through povray.off-topic is
probably somewhat bored and wishes to pass time (probably until the current
render finishes) ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> You need to store the previous row in POV-Ray anyway, to know if you need to
> antialias the current pixel :)
Not in 3.7, which renders one small square at a time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> TC wrote:
>
>> What is the largest image you have rendered and how long did it take?
>
> I've rendered stuff for Zazzle at silly resolutions. (It takes a *long*
> time with a 32-bit CPU.)
>
> Let me go check... Yeah, that was 8,000 x 6,000 pixels.
That`s truly insane! Some fractal, I guess?
how about render time? Days, weeks or months? :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> You need to store the previous row in POV-Ray anyway, to know if you need to
> antialias the current pixel :)
I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are
supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before
deciding whether to supersample further...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Both NTFS and VFS in theory support up to 8 exabytes on a partition.
>
> Actually wikipedia claims that NTFS supports partitions and files of
> 16 exabytes. That's a bit better than ReiserFS which supports "only"
> 8 terabytes.
Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Actually wikipedia claims that NTFS supports partitions and files of
>> 16 exabytes. That's a bit better than ReiserFS which supports "only"
>> 8 terabytes.
>
> Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
> of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
>
Well, I have 2 terabytes at home and AFAIK that's not uncommon these
days. Thinking from there, I think Google or Amazon really does have at
least exabytes.
XFS also seems to support 8 exabytes, so I won't have a problem when
upscaling the array some day :p.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does this amount of storage actually exist somewhere? (E.g., what kind
>> of space does somebody like Google or Amazon have?)
>
> Well, I have 2 terabytes at home and AFAIK that's not uncommon these
> days. Thinking from there, I think Google or Amazon really does have at
> least exabytes.
Yes, 1 or 2 TB HDs are on sale if you have the cash.
Note that before you get to exabytes you must first pass through
petabytes - we're talking about *two* scale units, not just one.
Given that a single drive can hold 1 TB, it's not infeasible that
somebody could amass 1,000 of those in a data-center somewhere. That
would give you 1 PB. But 1 EB? Is that really possible yet?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > You need to store the previous row in POV-Ray anyway, to know if you need to
> > antialias the current pixel :)
> I was under the impression that with AA enabled, *all* pixels are
> supersampled. (But with adaptive supersampling, it shoots 4 rays before
> deciding whether to supersample further...)
Nope. What do you think the factor after the +a option means?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
