In article <35a420e1.0@news.povray.org>, "Justin Rogers" <dig### [at] 3nnet> wrote:
> Each thread will work on a seperate part of the image with it's own set of
> global variables...  I have looked at the source and it isn't hard to do at
> all.  My proposal would be the same as running 4 versions of POV each
> rendering say 1/4 of the picture.  This is easily done and each thread could
> have its own thread-local.  And it would be very easy to implement.  Don't
> think of things in such a narrow minded, one directional approach.  There is
> always someone with a workable idea.  Try to support such people instead of
> discouraging creativity.  You'll find it is much more beneficial.

   *hehehe* isn't that cute? He thinks threads are free :)
   Why don't you run a separate thread for each pixel? That would be, for
a moderate 640x480, 307,200 threads. With that many threads, the rendering
will be over before it has even begun! Then we can all go home ;)

   Chris Johnson (in all seriousness- try mixing creativity with
willingness to _listen_ to what people are telling you ;) )
         @airwindows.com
   chrisj

Post a reply to this message

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:

> I've been thinking about this one, too (non-linear transformations).
> It's a difficult problem. It would be easy (relatively) to take a shape
> and skew it based on some function. However, I think there would be a
> lot of work to also take into account surface normal, textures and
> everything else which dictates what an object would look like at a
> skewed point. I don't think it is impossible at all, just a very tricky
> and uncomfortable problem. I sure ain't the guy to take on that one!

Transforming normals isn't too hard.  I don't remember the formula
offhand for deriving the normal-transformation matrix from the
point-transformation matrix, but it's in Andrew Glassner's "Graphics
Gems".
-- 

Mike Paul
mbp### [at] lockeccilorg
http://www.worldaxes.com/paul_fam

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:17:40 -0500, Michael Paul wrote:
>"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this one, too (non-linear transformations).
>> It's a difficult problem. It would be easy (relatively) to take a shape
>> and skew it based on some function. However, I think there would be a
>> lot of work to also take into account surface normal, textures and
>> everything else which dictates what an object would look like at a
>> skewed point. I don't think it is impossible at all, just a very tricky
>> and uncomfortable problem. I sure ain't the guy to take on that one!
>
>Transforming normals isn't too hard.  I don't remember the formula
>offhand for deriving the normal-transformation matrix from the
>point-transformation matrix, but it's in Andrew Glassner's "Graphics
>Gems".

There's a function (or perhaps a macro) for this in POV, too, but it assumes
that your transformation is a matrix, which a nonlinear transformatio isn't,
by definition.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message