Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the hardware-to-lust-after dept.
BlackHat linked us to IBMs
Deep View, a
research system for rendering and other advanced applications (Q3A). The
PC is 8 Linux boxes in a rack, which is needed to generate the content for the
T221 display which operates at 3840x2400.
Bumps the Mig-19 from my list
by
anticypher
·
· Score: 4, Funny
9.2 megaPixel, up to 56 Hz refresh in a 22 inch LCD screen. Want!
This is now very high on my luxury wish list. When is the next IT bubble scheduled to happen again? I have to start my plan to get rich on other people's stupidity and greed so I can afford a system like this.
the AC
-- Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Great game engine
by
johnlcallaway
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Why not just turn your monitor on and off as fast as you can? You'll save a lot of money.
-- --
http://frobnosticate.com
Re:Bandwidth...
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Umm, just over 8 gigabits per second is nothing. That's about 1 GB/sec, and an 8x AGP (2 GB/sec) graphics adapter (Radeon 9700) would have no trouble handling that data rate. Besides, you don't have to pump *all* of that data over the AGP bus. You send only display lists and textures and whatnot over the AGP bus. The local graphics card (where the actual data rate would hit near 1 GB/sec) has (on a Radeon 9700) about 20 GB/sec of bandwidth.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The death of the zoom tool
by
HawaiianMayan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
IBM brought one of these screens by Alias|Wavefront to show. The image detail is unbelievable.
In fact, you don't need a zoom tool on your paint program anymore,.. you just need a real magnifying glass sitting next to the monitor (IBM brought one), because it's showing much more detail than you can really see!
One thing it shows, though, is the need for vector-bases scalable interfaces... the default Windows UI was so tiny on that screen it was really hard to use!
Ummm and Sony have announced that IBM and Toshiba will be joining up to develop the architecture and processors for the Playstation 3.
The odds on these two pieces of work not being related have to be pretty slim. Its a pretty clear gameplan, XBOX2 is a "Windows Home Gateway", PS3 is a "Multimedia Home Gateway" that happens to be running linux.
-- An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Which is why you use an LCD...
by
MosesJones
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Films are 24Hz, but you don't worry about that, and using an LCD screen means that you don't get the blurring and flashing of a normal monitor.
-- An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
um, you can't expect the actual textures to look better just because they are shown with better resolution (in fact, quite the opposite). the "point" is that you can run it in real time with that resolution, and make software that has high enough resolution textures and looks really good. It's kinda like bumping your monitor resolution to 1600x1200 and expecting old DOS games to look better as the result.
I've gotta call bullshit there. The only case where lighting would have any effect on the perception of a CRT would be its intensity, and even then its effect would be indirect.
Your eyes are much more sensitive to flicker in the periphery than looking dead on. If the room is very bright, your eyes will be less dialated, and you'll be less sensitive to the flicker of your monitor.
Artificial light does have it's own flicker component, but that won't interfere with a crt because it doesn't depend on the reflection of that light for its operation. Now if you take an HP48 calculator, you will probably notice some flicker in rooms lit mostly with flourescent lights. The refresh on flourescents (in the US anyway) are close to the refresh of the reflective lcd on the HP48, hence the banding.
Another big factor on flicker is the rate of decay of the phospher elements in your monitor. The slower the glow decay, the less likley you are to see a flicker--the pixel is still glowing from the last time it was hit, when it is struck again. The longer this decay, the lower refresh rate you can get away with from a flicker point of view.
However, now you suffer from smearing or stuttering (sometimes called ghosting). The optimal setup would be a phospher coating with nearly infinite decay rate, operating with an infinite refresh rate.
Television, here in the US is refreshed at something like 30Hz (non hdtv). The reasons you don't see the flicker are: 1) slow decay rate of the phospher. 2) you are usually 5 or 6 feet away from a tv when you are watching--so it isn't in your peripheral vision. 3) While big screen tv's are getting more common, most people are still below the 36 inch mark, which also means it is mostly in your non-peripheral vision.
Try this: Go up to like a 13 inch tv or something small like that, turn it on to some show that has a lot of white to it. Stand about 1 foot or so away, and look just above the TV. I guarantee that you will see flicker. Some people are more sensitve to flicker than others, and it will depend a little on the TV, but at 30hz, I imagine everyone in the world can see it.
LCD--I think all of the consumer LCDs out today suck as far as pixel decay. I don't know the reason, capacitance maybe, but they suck. Much slower decay than CRTs. On many LCDs today, you still can't tell if you have "mouse trails" turned on or off (in ms windows). So that is why you don't see flicker as much at such low refresh rates on LCDs. There may be other reasons too... I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
An article about the methods IBM used to cluster eight dual processor Linux workstations to provide the necessary graphics power.
Movies of Deep View in action.
9.2 megaPixel, up to 56 Hz refresh in a 22 inch LCD screen. Want!
This is now very high on my luxury wish list. When is the next IT bubble scheduled to happen again? I have to start my plan to get rich on other people's stupidity and greed so I can afford a system like this.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Why not just turn your monitor on and off as fast as you can? You'll save a lot of money.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Umm, just over 8 gigabits per second is nothing. That's about 1 GB/sec, and an 8x AGP (2 GB/sec) graphics adapter (Radeon 9700) would have no trouble handling that data rate. Besides, you don't have to pump *all* of that data over the AGP bus. You send only display lists and textures and whatnot over the AGP bus. The local graphics card (where the actual data rate would hit near 1 GB/sec) has (on a Radeon 9700) about 20 GB/sec of bandwidth.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
IBM brought one of these screens by Alias|Wavefront to show. The image detail is unbelievable.
In fact, you don't need a zoom tool on your paint program anymore,.. you just need a real magnifying glass sitting next to the monitor (IBM brought one), because it's showing much more detail than you can really see!
One thing it shows, though, is the need for vector-bases scalable interfaces... the default Windows UI was so tiny on that screen it was really hard to use!
Ummm and Sony have announced that IBM and Toshiba will be joining up to develop the architecture and processors for the Playstation 3.
The odds on these two pieces of work not being related have to be pretty slim. Its a pretty clear gameplan, XBOX2 is a "Windows Home Gateway", PS3 is a "Multimedia Home Gateway" that happens to be running linux.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Films are 24Hz, but you don't worry about that, and using an LCD screen means that you don't get the blurring and flashing of a normal monitor.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
(* Deep throught was IBM's predecessor to Deep Blue *)
It is rumored that the Bush admin is using IBM computers to plan an Iraqi invasion. It will be called "deep shit" (for which side is unclear).
Table-ized A.I.
um, you can't expect the actual textures to look better just because they are shown with better resolution (in fact, quite the opposite). the "point" is that you can run it in real time with that resolution, and make software that has high enough resolution textures and looks really good. It's kinda like bumping your monitor resolution to 1600x1200 and expecting old DOS games to look better as the result.
sic transit gloria mundi
I've gotta call bullshit there. The only case where lighting would have any effect on the perception of a CRT would be its intensity, and even then its effect would be indirect.
Your eyes are much more sensitive to flicker in the periphery than looking dead on. If the room is very bright, your eyes will be less dialated, and you'll be less sensitive to the flicker of your monitor.
Artificial light does have it's own flicker component, but that won't interfere with a crt because it doesn't depend on the reflection of that light for its operation. Now if you take an HP48 calculator, you will probably notice some flicker in rooms lit mostly with flourescent lights. The refresh on flourescents (in the US anyway) are close to the refresh of the reflective lcd on the HP48, hence the banding.
Another big factor on flicker is the rate of decay of the phospher elements in your monitor. The slower the glow decay, the less likley you are to see a flicker--the pixel is still glowing from the last time it was hit, when it is struck again. The longer this decay, the lower refresh rate you can get away with from a flicker point of view.
However, now you suffer from smearing or stuttering (sometimes called ghosting). The optimal setup would be a phospher coating with nearly infinite decay rate, operating with an infinite refresh rate.
Television, here in the US is refreshed at something like 30Hz (non hdtv). The reasons you don't see the flicker are: 1) slow decay rate of the phospher. 2) you are usually 5 or 6 feet away from a tv when you are watching--so it isn't in your peripheral vision. 3) While big screen tv's are getting more common, most people are still below the 36 inch mark, which also means it is mostly in your non-peripheral vision.
Try this: Go up to like a 13 inch tv or something small like that, turn it on to some show that has a lot of white to it. Stand about 1 foot or so away, and look just above the TV. I guarantee that you will see flicker. Some people are more sensitve to flicker than others, and it will depend a little on the TV, but at 30hz, I imagine everyone in the world can see it.
LCD--I think all of the consumer LCDs out today suck as far as pixel decay. I don't know the reason, capacitance maybe, but they suck. Much slower decay than CRTs. On many LCDs today, you still can't tell if you have "mouse trails" turned on or off (in ms windows). So that is why you don't see flicker as much at such low refresh rates on LCDs. There may be other reasons too... I don't know.