Re: Relation between texture and texel coordinates

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 14:26:58 -0700


With overlap do you mean the WRAP method?

Are you talking about CLAMP vs REPEAT?

CHeers,ANgus.

Volz, Bill (WRVO) wrote:
>
> What is the exact relationship between texture coordinates and how they
> relate to the actual texel coordinates, especially when the textures have
> overlap? How does the border come into play with the rasterization?
>
> Without overlap, I know that a texture coordinate of 0.0 corresponds to
> texel coordinate of 0 and texture coordinate of 1.0 corresponds to texel
> coordinate n-1 (where n is the size of the corresponding dimension). What I
> want to know is how overlap is taken into account when the hardware is
> converting the texel data to raster data and which texels would be accessed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> William R Volz - Senior Research Geophysicist
> Chevron Petroleum Technology
> Voice: 281-596-2059 Fax: 281-596-3009
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/software/performer/
> Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
> Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

-- 
For years now, whenever NT has been proven to have some debilitating
weakness we've heard from MS advocates that NT would catch up, there was
just an incredible faith in this OS and Microsoft's ability to somehow
get there. With the recent results of the Linux vs NT serving benchmark
that same attitude can be seen in the Linux community. The Linux folks
aren't too worried, "Sure the single threaded IP stack was slow but
it'll be fixed in the next release.", it's eerily familiar but I have
confidence in the Linux community's ability to remedy problems and I
don't groan in pain as I used to when Microsoft made similar claims.

For advanced 3D graphics Performer + OpenGL based examples and tutors: http://www.dorbie.com/


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Jul 06 1999 - 14:27:01 PDT

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