Slashdot Mirror
Photon Soup Update
rkeene517 writes "Two and a half months ago I posted an article asking for spare computer cycles. I was swamped by emails and volunteers. After the first weeks most dropped out. The die-hards kept running the program and we simulated 45.3 billion photons. The pictures are here. Thanks to all that helped out. I will be submitting the images to SIGGRAPH 2005 and a paper. (P.S. Never post your email address on slashdot. I got 900 emails! ouch.)"
Computers got 3000 times faster, but Java managed to compensate for 11 years of evolution.
The previous article says:
Year: 1994
Computers: 100 SparcStation 1
Time: 1 month
Photons: 29 billion, 29 billion/month
Now we have:
Year: 2004
Computers: Unknown, supposedly 3000 times faster
Time: 2.5 months
Photons: 45.3 billions, 18 billion/month
If computers are indeed 3000 times faster, or heck, even 100, you should have got 72 billion just out of one of those computers running for the 2.5 months.
I'm feeding a troll, so I'm posting without bonus to lessen the ugly karma hit.
Don't be ridiculous. Caching DOES have very tricky issues dealing with copyright infringement.
My suggestion for Caching, though:
Enable submitter-optional caching, don't cache sites with any ad banners, only cache a site AFTER a cache.txt file has been placed in the home directory of the site with a listing of the files allowed to be cached (check it once every 5 minutes or so).
Firstly, I'm kind of irritated that the usual slashdot troll crowd expends so much hatred and ignorance on a truly creative project. The technique might not be using OpenGL, DirectX or ATi or NVidia's newest cards, but that is no reason to trash talk a technique that, in a few years time, might revolutionise CGI work in movies.
And in movie production is where this technique will most probably eventually find use. Movie studios have the budget and the server farm equipment to make good use of a time and resource expensive technique such as this.
And they certainly would want to. The images have almost exactly the same quality as grainy 1950's kodacolor or poor images from my 1970's vintage Kodak instamatic. While adding grain to a movie is no problem, most rendering techniques used today produce surfaces that are simply too clean and glass effects that are too clear, and this immediately gets picked up by the human eye, which is very good at subliminally noticing differences in image quality. Tracing the paths of photons and their interaction through and with materials produces images that mimic reality in an excellent way, IMO.
I'm pretty sure that a large cluster, such as the one using Apple's G5s at Virginia tech, running optimised C or C++ code would be able to produce usable footage for movies. And what's more, I'm pretty sure that sooner or later, there will be tools to make this technique more accessable.