 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
Sexy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/05/2014 04:06 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
>
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
ZOMG! INFINITE POINT-CLOUD DARTA!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's interesting about it, from what I understand, is that it's
basically raytracing the point-cloud's data, without loading the entire
dataset into memory first. It's only reading the pieces of information
that correspond to the pixels being rendered.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 13/05/2014 23:06, Tim Cook a écrit :
> What's interesting about it, from what I understand, is that it's
> basically raytracing the point-cloud's data, without loading the entire
> dataset into memory first. It's only reading the pieces of information
> that correspond to the pixels being rendered.
And compared to mesh, it's only cloud of points without the myriad of
links (in a mesh, a point can be part of many links / faces). The point
is just a bit more complex that just coordinates. But only a single set
of data to scan, nice.
Remind me of impressionists' approach: collection of coloured dots gave
lots of nice pictures. The movement eventually turned in
Neo-impressionism or divisionism (or pointillism).
All that happened in 1880's... computers are so slow to adopt something.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 6:20 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> All that happened in 1880's... computers are so slow to adopt something.
LOL
How true. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
I solemnly promise to kick the next angle, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising
it convincingly. If it's legit, it almost feels like they are
*deliberately* trying to make it sound like an inexistent hoax product
that's being marketed with fancy nonsensical marketing words aimed at
fooling laypeople.
Their "explanations" don't actually explain anything, and they use
concepts that seem completely contradictory to facts. Just as a good
example, consider:
"The reason why Euclideon is so quick to load is because we are actually
running it straight from the hard drive instead of from the RAM."
That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, you can't "run" anything
directly from the hard drive (you could *read* data directly from the hard
drive, but that's not "running"). Secondly, RAM is like a million times
faster than any hard drive, so saying that it's faster because it's reading
data directly from the hard drive rather than the computer's RAM makes no
sense.
They are probably trying to say something else, but as said, it almost
feels like they are *deliberately* trying to make it sound like a hoax
aimed at gullible laypeople who know nothing about computers.
Add to that the fact that comments are disabled, and it only reinforces
the notion.
If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
properly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 05:45 PM, Warp wrote:
> If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
> properly.
I concur.
It sounded like BS the first time I saw it, several years ago. This new
video is much longer, but it still sounds like BS.
I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
the same time take up less space than the original data. The only way I
can think of that you could rapidly access billions of points and render
them in real-time is if you've precomputed stuff like crazy - and that
wouldn't give you any compression at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Add to that the need for ordering the data for sequential access, which
you can't do for *every* viewpoint simultaneously, and... this product
really, really sounds like fairydust.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-14 11:45, Warp wrote:
> "The reason why Euclideon is so quick to load is because we are actually
> running it straight from the hard drive instead of from the RAM."
>
> That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, you can't "run" anything
> directly from the hard drive (you could *read* data directly from the hard
> drive, but that's not "running"). Secondly, RAM is like a million times
> faster than any hard drive, so saying that it's faster because it's reading
> data directly from the hard drive rather than the computer's RAM makes no
> sense.
It makes more sense when you realise they're working with data that's a
few orders of magnitude larger than will even fit in RAM. It's like
that large-image library...thing that lets you query a smaller region of
a few-ten-thousand-pixels-on-each-side image that can't possibly be
loaded all at once.
> If it's legit, they are doing a horrible, horrible job at advertising it
> properly.
For now...yeah. Think it's mostly still in proof-of-concept stage.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
> the same time [...]
The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
cheap ones.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/14 22:12, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> For now...yeah. Think it's mostly still in proof-of-concept stage.
>
I hate to disillusion you, but unless they've solved the 'Travelling
Salesman' problem this is a non-starter - not a hoax, but certainly a
misconception on the principals' part.
Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
