Inside: SereneScreen Fan Forum - View Single Post

Reichart · 04-22-2003, 05:17 PM

Yup, we are pushing the boundaries of the 3D again. The good news is (in my opinion) the product looks better at lower resolution, thus runs MUCH FASTER.

The reason is that high res out performs our current ability and technologically (meaning all tech) to perform. roughly, you want a ratio that is about 30 pixels per poly. The higher the resolution, the higher this number goes, which is bad. 1:1: is great if you could get it, where every polygon is for all intent a single pixel.

Assuming our display is 1600x1200, and we have about 2500 polys, we are talking about roughly 10K pixels per poly. That sucks.

Now consider a 3D movie effect made for TV. Same polys, but NTSC (which is calculated as 720x 480 roughly) 138 pixels per Poly. Amazing different no?!?

I think of this stuff in terms of math, frequency response, etc. It is all a game of numbers.

04-22-2003, 05:17 PM	#7
Reichart CTO Prolific Publishing Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Maui Posts: 423	Yup, we are pushing the boundaries of the 3D again. The good news is (in my opinion) the product looks better at lower resolution, thus runs MUCH FASTER. The reason is that high res out performs our current ability and technologically (meaning all tech) to perform. roughly, you want a ratio that is about 30 pixels per poly. The higher the resolution, the higher this number goes, which is bad. 1:1: is great if you could get it, where every polygon is for all intent a single pixel. Assuming our display is 1600x1200, and we have about 2500 polys, we are talking about roughly 10K pixels per poly. That sucks. Now consider a 3D movie effect made for TV. Same polys, but NTSC (which is calculated as 720x 480 roughly) 138 pixels per Poly. Amazing different no?!? I think of this stuff in terms of math, frequency response, etc. It is all a game of numbers. *Reichart...* , CTO, Prolific Publishing, Inc. Come visit us Prolific Publishing, Inc.