Re: AN interesting comment.

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Steve Baker (steve++at++mred.bgm.link.com)
Fri, 17 Jan 97 08:11:15 -0500


A few people misinterpreted what I was saying about Jim Blinns seemingly
remarkable assertion about double-framed rendering,

1) Blinn wasn't talking about double buffering - he was talking about double
   *framing* - the process of rendering the scene at (say) 30Hz on a 60Hz
   display.

2) I know (of course) about the obvious artifacts like fast moving objects
   appearing as though they are duplicated (or triplicated at 20Hz, etc)
   - that's due to a simple physiological effect which is easily explained.
   (If you'd like a simple explanation for this, let me know)

What intrigued me was that Blinn seems to be telling us that the brain
somehow interprets this update rate/video rate disparity as if the object
is moving faster - even though it covers the same distance in the same time.

That is a most remarkable claim - which (if true) should cause us all to wonder
whether the practice of running simulations at 30Hz is as valid a cost cutting
measure as we all currently assume it to be.

Steve Baker 817-619-1361 (Vox-Lab)
Hughes Training Inc. 817-619-8776 (Vox-Office/Vox-Mail)
2200 Arlington Downs Road 817-619-4028 (Fax)
Arlington, Texas. TX 76005-6171 Steve++at++MrEd.bgm.link.com (eMail)
http://www.hti.com (external) http://MrEd.bgm.link.com/staff/steve (intranet)
                                http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 (external)

"You can't destroy the Earth - that's where I keep all my stuff!" - The Tick.

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:54:21 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.