 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>>> If you converted POV to run on the GPU then it would take a huge
>>> amount of work and would no longer be as portable as it is today.
>>
>> But would be much faster! Take a look here:
>
> Sure, but there simply aren't the people willing to do the work for
> free. Look how long it's taken from 3.6 to 3.7 beta, what hope is there
> of a complete rewrite for the GPU before 2020?
What hope is there for an old-fashioned, dog-slow, CPU-only raytracer to
still be alive by 2020?
>> it's an experimental and limited port of the open-source unbiased
>> renderer Luxrender to OpenCL.
>
> From my very limited knowledge of OpenCL it seems like POV would need
> to be rewritten from scratch to use it.
The guys there ported the ray intersection code and the space
partitioning. And are working now on refining load balance. Good
starting points without much pain if you ask me... I'd leave troubles
with non-triangle surfaces out.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> What hope is there for an old-fashioned, dog-slow, CPU-only raytracer to
> still be alive by 2020?
Depends on whether any other renderers pop up that can do what POV-Ray does.
Scan-line rendering is way, way faster than any conceivable ray-tracing
algorithm. And yet, people still use ray tracers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Scan-line rendering is way, way faster than any conceivable ray-tracing
> algorithm. And yet, people still use ray tracers...
yes, and in coming years will be using several magnitudes faster
GPU-bound ones based on industry-standard triangle meshes.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2010 7:59, nemesis wrote:
> Amazing the amount of self-denial one has to go in order to cope with excuses
> for why his favorite rendering engine should not evolve.
>
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> wrote:
>>> Can you imagine what povray could do comparatively without getting
>>> boiled down by unbiased techniques?!
>>>
>> Those unbiased techniques are what allows them to appear so fast. The
>> video appears to be getting 10fps tops, and between 2 and 4 the rest of
>> the time. Yes, unbiased rendering is slower to achieve the same image as
>> a biased renderer, however you can stop it much sooner and get a full
>> resolution picture. That picture just has more noise.
>>
>> Your question comes out as if you were asking "Could you imagine what
>> povray could do by using unbiased techniques for single sample speed
>> increases without being unbiased?" I think the quickest answer would be
>> "Not really, but set the max depth to 1 and lets see what the pictures
>> look like."
>
> No, my question is merely like: "hey, I can render scenes in povray in seconds
> rather than dozens of minutes. And truly complex ones in a few hours rather
> than days."
You will still have the general increase in power, so if you need a 30
time increase, just wait 7.5 years.
> I'm not impressed with that demo's noisy 4fps display. I'm impressed to see
> scenes with full light transport phenomena set that usually take 1 hour to
> denoise being noise-free in a couple of minutes.
>
> This is the future: tapping all that hidden power that was being ignored so far
> because we insist on using a lame-O chip geared at word processing to do math
> operations.
That remark merely shows that you don't know anything about the history
and design of computers, or choose to ignore that.
Anyway, the best we can hope for is a continuation of POV along the
lines that we are currently following. Hopefully there will be an
offspring (possibly GPU based) that will be able to parse POV scenes and
generate a preview of less quality but in much smaller time. When that
will get to the same quality as the main development line they might be
merged. The main problem is that there is not enough man-power to do
this. You have indicated that you don't have the skills. I might have
some, but I don't have the time. Most people here fall in either one of
these categories. So we just have to hope that someone comes along with
a coincidence of time and skills.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escreveu:
> You will still have the general increase in power, so if you need a 30
> time increase, just wait 7.5 years.
in 7.5 years, assuming intel don't buy nvidia, I'll be using the whole
sheer processing power available rather than just CPU. So, you may have
your 30x speedup, while your GPU sits idle, but I'll be making it sweat
to give me 500-1000x speedups.
>> This is the future: tapping all that hidden power that was being
>> ignored so far
>> because we insist on using a lame-O chip geared at word processing to
>> do math
>> operations.
>
> That remark merely shows that you don't know anything about the history
> and design of computers, or choose to ignore that.
It was obviously an over-the-top remark, but you get the point.
> Hopefully there will be an
> offspring (possibly GPU based) that will be able to parse POV scenes and
> generate a preview of less quality but in much smaller time. When that
This makes no sense at all: people aren't getting into GPU to get
lame-O real-time previews of less quality, but to speed up final renders
by a few orders of magnitude.
If you think GPU = game-like graphic quality, you're very dead wrong.
General Purpose GPU programming is all about using that huge available
power for general purpose computations. Power that you don't use at all
if you're not a gamer right now.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2010 20:16, nemesis wrote:
> andrel escreveu:
>> You will still have the general increase in power, so if you need a 30
>> time increase, just wait 7.5 years.
>
> in 7.5 years, assuming intel don't buy nvidia, I'll be using the whole
> sheer processing power available rather than just CPU. So, you may have
> your 30x speedup, while your GPU sits idle, but I'll be making it sweat
> to give me 500-1000x speedups.
>
>>> This is the future: tapping all that hidden power that was being
>>> ignored so far
>>> because we insist on using a lame-O chip geared at word processing to
>>> do math
>>> operations.
>>
>> That remark merely shows that you don't know anything about the
>> history and design of computers, or choose to ignore that.
>
> It was obviously an over-the-top remark, but you get the point.
>
> > Hopefully there will be an
> > offspring (possibly GPU based) that will be able to parse POV scenes and
> > generate a preview of less quality but in much smaller time. When that
>
> This makes no sense at all: people aren't getting into GPU to get
> lame-O real-time previews of less quality, but to speed up final renders
> by a few orders of magnitude.
That may vary between persons. For me the most time consuming is finding
the right viewpoint, testing textures and lighting. That takes more than
an order of magnitude more time than the final render.
>
> If you think GPU = game-like graphic quality,
No
> you're very dead wrong.
So I might not be.
> General Purpose GPU programming is all about using that huge available
> power for general purpose computations. Power that you don't use at all
> if you're not a gamer right now.
What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that the
result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering is less
physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit lacking in
multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly also in
versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I don't
actually know for sure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escreveu:
> That may vary between persons. For me the most time consuming is finding
> the right viewpoint, testing textures and lighting. That takes more than
> an order of magnitude more time than the final render.
ah, yes, forgot there's no OpenGL viewport... well, those with one only
care for faster final renders.
>> If you think GPU = game-like graphic quality,
> No
>> you're very dead wrong.
> So I might not be.
you say that but then you also say:
> What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that the
> result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering is less
> physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit lacking in
> multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly also in
> versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I don't
> actually know for sure.
I show you a link for a video of a physically-based path tracer running
on GPU and yet you talk about limited game tech...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2010 20:59, nemesis wrote:
> andrel escreveu:
>> That may vary between persons. For me the most time consuming is
>> finding the right viewpoint, testing textures and lighting. That takes
>> more than an order of magnitude more time than the final render.
>
> ah, yes, forgot there's no OpenGL viewport... well, those with one only
> care for faster final renders.
>
>>> If you think GPU = game-like graphic quality,
>> No
>>> you're very dead wrong.
>> So I might not be.
>
> you say that but then you also say:
>
>> What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that
>> the result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering is
>> less physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit
>> lacking in multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly
>> also in versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I
>> don't actually know for sure.
>
> I show you a link for a video of a physically-based path tracer running
> on GPU and yet you talk about limited game tech...
>
No I didn't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escreveu:
>>> What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that
>>> the result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering
>>> is less physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit
>>> lacking in multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly
>>> also in versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I
>>> don't actually know for sure.
>>
>> I show you a link for a video of a physically-based path tracer
>> running on GPU and yet you talk about limited game tech...
>>
> No I didn't.
Those words are yours.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-1-2010 21:52, nemesis wrote:
> andrel escreveu:
>>>> What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that
>>>> the result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering
>>>> is less physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit
>>>> lacking in multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly
>>>> also in versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I
>>>> don't actually know for sure.
>>>
>>> I show you a link for a video of a physically-based path tracer
>>> running on GPU and yet you talk about limited game tech...
>>>
>> No I didn't.
>
> Those words are yours.
>
Which?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
