 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wrote a small program to plot a logarithmic scale. Although it's wider
at one end than the other, it doesn't look quite right to me. And when I
attempted to do some calculations with it, I got gibberish answers.
Upon further investigation, I discovered that my logarithmic scale is
not, in fact, logarithmic. It fails to have at least two properties that
a propper log scale should have:
Fact #1: The distance from 1 to 2 should equal the distance from 2 to 4.
Fact #2: The distance from 1 to 2 should equal the distance from 10 to 20.
Looking at my scale, the distance from 10 to 20 is about a dozen times
larger than from 1 to 2. EPIC FAILURE.
As I said, the tick marks aren't equally spaced - so it's not a linear
scale. But it's also not properly logarithmic either. God only knows how
I've managed to get something this trivial so badly wrong... :'{
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> EPIC FAILURE.
>
> God only knows how
> I've managed to get something this trivial so badly wrong... :'{
Well, I fixed it by remapping the scale after taking the logarithm
rather than before. But I'm still mystified as to what the hell went
wrong...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...several hours later...
Decide how many frames you want to render. Time how long it takes to
render one frame. Draw a line from the render time to the frame count.
Where that line intersects the center axis, that's what the total render
time will be.
Man, that was *far* too much work! I need to find a much better way to
code this. The code is a total mess! >_<
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nomogram3f.pdf' (18 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.04.2010 16:21, schrieb Invisible:
> ...several hours later...
>
> Decide how many frames you want to render. Time how long it takes to
> render one frame. Draw a line from the render time to the frame count.
> Where that line intersects the center axis, that's what the total render
> time will be.
>
> Man, that was *far* too much work! I need to find a much better way to
> code this. The code is a total mess! >_<
How about something as simple as:
- Decide how many frames you want to render.
- Time how many seconds it takes to render one frame.
- Using an ordinary pocket calculator, multiply the frame number by the
single-frame rendering time in seconds.
- The result will be the estimated total rendering time of the whole
animation in seconds.
- Divide by 3600 to get the total rendering time in hours.
- If the number is still too big to comprehend, divide again by 24 to
get the total rendering time in days.
Just a suggestion though. Experienced people may want to use a slide
ruler, abacus, pen & paper or their bare head instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/04/2010 4:29 PM, clipka wrote:
> Just a suggestion though. Experienced people may want to use a slide
> ruler, abacus, pen & paper or their bare head instead.
I take it you wear a hat when calculating :-P
FWIW, using that method seldom works well, in my experience. In my
scenes the middle frames generally take the longest to render. But then
I like cyclic doodles where the least action takes place at the start
and end.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.04.2010 18:11, schrieb Stephen:
> On 27/04/2010 4:29 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Just a suggestion though. Experienced people may want to use a slide
>> ruler, abacus, pen & paper or their bare head instead.
>
> I take it you wear a hat when calculating :-P
No, but I still got hair ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/04/2010 5:31 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.04.2010 18:11, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 27/04/2010 4:29 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Just a suggestion though. Experienced people may want to use a slide
>>> ruler, abacus, pen & paper or their bare head instead.
>>
>> I take it you wear a hat when calculating :-P
>
> No, but I still got hair ;-)
Me too <g>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nekar Xenos
Subject: Re: Another day, another failure
Date: 28 Apr 2010 00:51:24
Message: <op.vbuvrsjcufxv4h@xena>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:58:51 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I wrote a small program to plot a logarithmic scale. Although it's wider
> at one end than the other, it doesn't look quite right to me. And when I
> attempted to do some calculations with it, I got gibberish answers.
>
> Upon further investigation, I discovered that my logarithmic scale is
> not, in fact, logarithmic. It fails to have at least two properties that
> a propper log scale should have:
>
> Fact #1: The distance from 1 to 2 should equal the distance from 2 to 4.
>
> Fact #2: The distance from 1 to 2 should equal the distance from 10 to
> 20.
>
> Looking at my scale, the distance from 10 to 20 is about a dozen times
> larger than from 1 to 2. EPIC FAILURE.
>
> As I said, the tick marks aren't equally spaced - so it's not a linear
> scale. But it's also not properly logarithmic either. God only knows how
> I've managed to get something this trivial so badly wrong... :'{
It reminds me of my first attempt at a Mandelbrot render on my old 48k ZX
Spectrum. It looked like a skew Mandelbrot set. I think I had "-1" in the
recursion that shouldn't be there... :)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Decide how many frames you want to render. Time how long it takes to
>> render one frame. Draw a line from the render time to the frame count.
>> Where that line intersects the center axis, that's what the total render
>> time will be.
>
> How about something as simple as:
>
> - Decide how many frames you want to render.
> - Time how many seconds it takes to render one frame.
> - Using an ordinary pocket calculator, multiply the frame number by the
> single-frame rendering time in seconds.
> - The result will be the estimated total rendering time of the whole
> animation in seconds.
> - Divide by 3600 to get the total rendering time in hours.
> - If the number is still too big to comprehend, divide again by 24 to
> get the total rendering time in days.
>
> Just a suggestion though. Experienced people may want to use a slide
> ruler, abacus, pen & paper or their bare head instead.
Being able to glance at a chart on the wall and immediately see roughly
how long something is going to take is much less hassle than finding a
calculator or opening the calculator application on my computer and
trying not to mix up the units by mistake.
But hey, each to their own...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> As I said, the tick marks aren't equally spaced
Just heard in a science lecture:
"He was off by a factor of ten or so. What we learned from that is that any
data forms a straight line when plotted on a log-log graph."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
