AnyOldName3 Wrote:1) The kind of rendering you've been calling rasterisation is called scanline rendering. As you should know (and probably do - you mentioned wanting to go to bed, so I'll just assume you were sleepy) rasterisation is converting a vector representation of a scene/image/whatever into a bitmap representation. As raytracing converts a vector representation of a scene/image/whatever into a bitmap representation, it, too, is a form of rasterisation.
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
AnyOldName3 Wrote:2) You seem to be forgetting that Avatar was rendered at a much, much higher resolution than the 1080p used by most people for gaming due to the fact that it couldn't have noticeable aliasing even on a massive cinema screen.
That doesn't really effect the argument or the math since like you said lowering the resolution would impact image quality negatively. The article said avatar graphics so I'm using avatar graphics.
AnyOldName3 Wrote:It also had to be rendered 3 times - once for the left eye and once for the right eye for 3D viewings, and then a third time for the 2D viewings, as just using one of the two angles from the 3D viewing would make everything look like it was filmed from an awkward angle. Taking this into account, we can probably shave a good few years off the 52 year estimate you gave.
Nope. The number of times they rendered it does not effect render time per frame at all. Think about it.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony