🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11561@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> chrisg@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Chris Green) writes:
>
>	Has anyone ever attempted to take advantage of the 
>"infinite-frame-rate" of raster scan devices, particularly video?
>What I mean by this to render your animation with the knowledge
>that each pixel is (for instance) 35ns later than the preceeding
>pixel, and that each scan-line is ~63uS later than the preceeding
>one. Given appropriate temporal filtering, and a general enough
>4-d ray-tracer, shouldn't this provide a potential for improved
>quality? Is anyone familiar with any research or applications
>of this? I'm familiar with Don Mitchell's paper on interlace
>and chroma filtering for video.
>
>
>--
>Moderated by SCRI Vis <>           Submissions to: graphics@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
>Guy, John R. Murray   <> Administrivia to: graphics-request@scri1.scri.fsu.edu

Try muxing the outputs from 1000 framebuffers into a single analog stream.
I would rather pass on this approach.  The PixelFlow box captures the output 
from a composition network rated at 4 Gbytes/s into a single frambeubffer.

I don't believe this approach is truly scalable either, since its still
an example of the N to 1 mux problem.  So it is, in my opinion, contention
limited (the laws of physics won't cooperate and provide infinite digital
bus or network bandwidth).

I advocate a tessellated display approach myself, where each tessellation
element owns a processor, framebuffer, and display.  The trick is to coordinate
the system temporally.  The scalable concurrent visualization system trades
contention for asynchronous execution.
--rick
-- 
Richard Marlon Stein, Internet: rms@well.sf.ca.us
To those who know what is not known;  The Chronicles of Microwave Jim!

--
Moderated by SCRI Vis <>           Submissions to: graphics@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
Guy, John R. Murray   <> Administrivia to: graphics-request@scri1.scri.fsu.edu