Made this myself from knowledge I've gained from POV-Ray, and my matrix
algebra class last semester didn't hurt either.

Beware: it's 100s of times slower than povray, and pretty darn limited =) I
don't plan on expanding it any further; I just wanted to prove to myself
that I *could* do it.

http://www.slimeland.com/experiments/raytrace.html

(btw: apologies if this should belong in off-topic, i'm not sure where to
put it, just wanted to share.)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:
> Made this myself from knowledge I've gained from POV-Ray, and my
> matrix algebra class last semester didn't hurt either.
>
> Beware: it's 100s of times slower than povray, and pretty darn
> limited =) I don't plan on expanding it any further; I just wanted to
> prove to myself that I *could* do it.
>
> http://www.slimeland.com/experiments/raytrace.html

That is just so cool :)


--
Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA


---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 06/06/2002

Post a reply to this message

Sweetness!

- Kevin R.

"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3d03da53$1@news.povray.org...
> Made this myself from knowledge I've gained from POV-Ray, and my matrix
> algebra class last semester didn't hurt either.
>
> Beware: it's 100s of times slower than povray, and pretty darn limited =)
I
> don't plan on expanding it any further; I just wanted to prove to myself
> that I *could* do it.
>
> http://www.slimeland.com/experiments/raytrace.html
>
> (btw: apologies if this should belong in off-topic, i'm not sure where to
> put it, just wanted to share.)
>
>  - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

Post a reply to this message

As my computer teacher would say, "that has a high degree of niftitude".

--
Kevin
http://www.geocities.com/qsquared_1999/
#macro _(r)#if(r<12)#local i=asc(substr("oqshilacefg",r,1))-97;
disc{<mod(i,7)-3,div(i,7)-1,6>,z,.4pigment{rgb 10}}_(r+1)
#end#end _(1)//KL

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:44:17 -0400, Slime wrote
> Made this myself from knowledge I've gained from POV-Ray, and my matrix
> algebra class last semester didn't hurt either.
> 
> Beware: it's 100s of times slower than povray, and pretty darn limited =) I
> don't plan on expanding it any further; I just wanted to prove to myself
> that I *could* do it.
> 
> http://www.slimeland.com/experiments/raytrace.html

The rendered image is displayed with an aspect ratio of about 4 to 1 in
my Mozilla, and it gets worse if a smaller font is used. The reason for
this is: you are using spans with a space character inside as pixels.
Mozilla, being a modern, standards-conforming browser, calculates the
width of each span as the width of a space in the selected font. In
other words, each span is 1 pixel high, but several pixels wide.

A much better way would be this one: Use a table with cellpadding="0"
and cellspacing="0", and one cell for each pixel. Put a transparent
image in each cell, in it, make it 1x1 in size and make sure you use
style="display:block" for that image. This style is crucial for the
concept to work, see the second entry on
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html for the reason why.
The background color of each cell should then be set to the desired
color of the pixel. An example for this technique can be found on

http://www.fmi.uni-passau.de/~christl/testtab.html

This example works with Mozilla (and thus, Netscape 6/7), Opera and IE
(at least IE for Solaris, I don't have a windows machine around while
I'm typing this).

-- 
Timon Christl <me### [at] christltimonde>

Post a reply to this message

The font size is set to 1 pixel, so if Mozilla is making it any wider than 1
pixel that's probably a bug of some sort (1 pixel is the *vertical* height,
and in most fonts characters are taller than they are wide). Nonetheless, I
might switch it to 1 pixel sized divs.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:07:35 -0400, Slime wrote
> The font size is set to 1 pixel, so if Mozilla is making it any wider
> than 1 pixel that's probably a bug of some sort (1 pixel is the
> *vertical* height, and in most fonts characters are taller than they
> are wide). Nonetheless, I might switch it to 1 pixel sized divs.

It is not a bug, it's a feature *g*. Very small font sizes are generally
unreadable and therefore do not make any sense. To help those that are
visually impaired Mozilla can enforce a certain minimum font size (AFAIK
it's set to "on", and 6px in the default settings). This can be toggled
on/off of course, but the casual users will not even know that this
feature exists.

You attempted to abuse font-size to achieve something for which it was
never intended. You really should use more suitable CSS attributes, it
will help to make the web a better place.

This gets too off-topic, so I consider this thread closed for my part.

-- 
Timon Christl <me### [at] christltimonde>

Post a reply to this message