Re: The Nod troll Challenge - Which He Failed Miserably.

On May 8, 7:17 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"imipak" <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:bbdd03b1-1551-4ce8-a7de-ad7bfda5d7d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 8, 5:11 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"imipak" <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7d19fa0c-86ef-423a-aecd-788f56dee546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 8, 4:21 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"imipak" <imi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:464e784a-739b-4433-9731-2517f245398e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 8, 1:10 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Nod" <N...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:vz%Ml.4973$oh6.4570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The original challenge for those that missed it and those that want
to
see
it again.

You failed to supply the animated model of the Titanic used by Cameron
or
one of the same quality. YOU FAIL BY DEFAULT! I WIN!

You failed to supply the software that could do the task properly on a
modern high-end PC using all the optimisations and accelerations
available
in the hardware. YOU FAIL BY DEFAULT! I WIN!

You failed to supply the modern high-end PC.

The following PC setup can do HD retracing in real time and surpass
the
quality of James Cameron's effects in less time than it to Cameron to
do
them all by
itself.http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/news/2008/08/15/nVidia-Demonst...

YOU FAIL BY DEFAULT! I WIN!

YOU ARE A LOSER! Get over it.

I AM THE WINNER!

<<<From the article you link to: "The aim of the demo, though, seems not
so much to have been to prove that ray-tracing is possible on the GPU,
but rather that it is still extremely unviable.">>>

STOP DISSEMBLING! Viability refers to the cost of gaming system and to
everyday computer games based on this technology, not to the viability
of
a
rendering system, which the article and demo clearly shows is viable.

"The demo itself comprised a render of a green Bugatti Veyron at a
resolution of 1,920 x 1,080 running at 30fps. In order to run in this
way,
though, nVidia needs an extremely powerful system: namely an nVidia
Quadro
Plex 2100 D4 Visual Computing System, which packs in a pair of dual-GPU
Quadro FX 4700 X2s. In simple terms: a heck of a lot of GPU processing
power. "

That was almost a year ago. Since then prices have come down so HD
ray-tracing is now extremely viable to games designers.

<<<(So it can't be done the way you claim. Fail number 1.)>>>

LIAR! The article clearly states that not only can it be done but it HAS
BEEN DONE!

<<<Also from the article: "Despite this huge amount of processing power
available, nVidia still isn't able to produce a photorealistic image
in real-time.">>>

IRRELEVANT! Neither was Cameron. The hardware can still produce images
that
are superior to those of Cameron and photo realistic 120 times faster
that
Cameron's technology.

<<<The article states, ant I quote, NOT photorealistic. The hardware does
NOT produce images superior to Cameron (it's a quarter of the
resolution, does not handle surfaces correctly, and does not use
NURBS.)>>>

LEARN TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH YOU CLUELESS IMBECILE! There article is
referring to its ability to do photo-realistic images in REAL TIME! It can
still do photo-realistic images faster than Cameron.

<<<I'm not the one with problems comprehending English. It states quite
clearly that it can NOT do photo-realistic images. At all. And as your>>>

IN REAL-TIME YOU DISSEMBLING LYING PIECE OF ***!

<<<prior post claimed that not only could it do photo-realistic images,
it could also do them in real-time, you have now stated clearly that>>>

SYSTEMATIC LIAR!

You can't comprehend a single thing you read.



<<<Also from the article: "In order to run at 30fps at 1080p, the demo
uses three bounces for each ray (i.e. each beam of light reflects off
three surfaces before 'hitting' the screen). To create a realistic
image, more reflections need to be calculated - but doing so would
turn the simulation into a slideshow. ">>>

One second between images is still 120 times faster than Cameron.

<<<No, because these aren't the same grade or the same resolution. It's
950,000x slower, if you adjust for these.>>>

WRONG! Cameron was working at 1440x900 resolution and each machine did a
separate frame each, not together. This hardware is over 120 times faster
than Cameron in respect of producing photo-realistic footage, and
Cameron's
were neither photo-realistic nor in true HD. What Cameron took 2 hours to
do, this can do in one second. Get over it. YOU LOST!

<<<No, Cameron was working at movie resolution. He had to, because that's
the resolution the images will appear at. You can't render at 1440x900
and display on a cinema screen, because it will either look horribly
squished or it will look horribly pixellated. Do try and use a BIT of>>>

IMBECILE! All modern graphics cards can render at at least 4x display
resolution or higher and the HD images showm in the article were rendered at
4x display resolution or better. The images Cameron produced were 1440x900
resolution.

Your TOTALLY AND UTTER CLUELESSNESS was exposed for all to see when you
produced your render at 4000 pixels wide instead of telling your graphics
card to anti-alias a 1920x1200 pixel wide image at 4x, which would have
rendered much faster using the acceleration and is equivalent to rendering
at 7680x4800 pixels. It's no wonder your rigging lines were nothing more
than broken dashes. YOU ARE AN IMBECILE!

<<<common sense. Even Arthur Dent, in the HHGTTG game, had a particle of
common sense. Surely you have at least as much. Well, maybe not. Your
original speed claim had been 200x faster, you now reduced it to 120x,>>>

More evidence of your inability to comprehend a single word you read. LEARN
THE MEANING OF THE WORD OVER! 200x is how much faster PCs have gotten since
1995. Over 120x is how much faster a modern PC is able to render a
photo-realistic image, compared to the matt-painting pixel shaded renders
used by Cameron in 1995.

You don't have a clue how modern computer hardware works. Rendering is done
by the GPU not the CPU. A modern CPU isn't even fast enough to redraw the
screen without tearing if you move a window across your screen with all the
acceleration features from your graphics card switched off.

You are as clueless SYSTEMATIC LIAR!

Now you lost you TROLL!

How incredibly dense of you. Intel PCs have not got 200x faster than
cluster farms of DEC Alphas and only an idiot would claim otherwise.
As you claim otherwise, you are self-evidently an idiot.

Secondly, nobody renders direct to screen, and most assuredly the
machines used to render the Titanic were not displaying the results on
any monitor, making the display resolution immaterial and the device
used to actually do the rendering equally immaterial. You generate
image data. If you display the image on screen, it's almost never the
image as it is on file. Of course, if you understood what rendering
WAS, you'd know this. Rendering has nothing to do with display
technology, which is why you can render an image on a computer with no
monitor (or GPU) at all. Works just fine. Actually, it's quicker, as
you don't have screen interrupts. If you'd bothered to consider the
render farm Cameron used, this would all be painfully obvious. Do you
imagine he went round all the monitors in the room and photographed
the displays? Like hell. These were file-to-file renders. (This would
also be obvious to anyone who knew Renderman. It's not an image
display program, it is a rendering package.)

Third, Cameron used Renderman shaders, which are not matt-painting.

Fourth, you're a dunce.

Fifth, movies are done in HDR, a technology Linux only started
supporting for displays very recently. Cameron rendered on Linux
workstations. I doubt he even bothered installing a GUI like X11 on
those systems. Why bother? They were never going to display anything,
it was all disk-to-disk. The output would have been later either
overlaid digitally onto the movie or projected onto film, but in
either case, it would be done at cinematic resolution. You can't anti-
alias on a projector.

Sixth, 4x display resolution isn't enough to anti-alias. Particularly
for HDR work, which all movies are. (You do know what HDR is, don't
you? Apparently not.) You absolutely need a minimum of x5 for even
standard definition, and the multiplier will (almost) always be an odd
number. It's rare you'd ever want to super-sample around the point of
interest but never the point itself. For HDR, you wouldn't want to
super-sample at much less than x9 because of the contrast.

Seventh, rendering itself super-samples, and will typically be done at
x64 or even x256 the resolution to be generated (which has nothing to
do with display resolution as it's not displayed at that point).

Eighth, you never read the article by the guys who did the work and
you have never done any rendering, so you have neither the knowledge
of what they did nor personal experience. In short, you are
unqualified to so much as sneeze at what anyone says.

Ninth, the images Cameron produced were cinematic resolution. Let's
say you were right, they were generated at 1440x900 (which isn't even
the ratio cinema screens operate on). You're also saying these are 4x
display. So what you're actually saying is that the images were
360x225, which would barely show up as a postage stamp on a cinema
screen.

Tenth, you really don't know *** about graphics, do you?
.

Loading