Absolutely! I can't believe that some people are saying this isn't cheating!!
Here's the deal, prior to any optimisation/cheating...
App programmer tells card to render something -> Card renders it the way app programmer tells it to -> User sees what app programmer intended.
After optimisation...
App programmer tells card to render something -> Card renders it the way app programmer tells it to, but faster -> User sees what app programmer intended.
After cheating...
Programmer tells card to render something -> Driver programmer decides that, actually app programmer doesn't know what he/she is talking about and shouldn't have told it to render the thing that way and that they know a much better way to render it -> Card renders it the way the driver programmer tells it to, which (surprise!) is faster -> User sees what driver programmer intended.
The point is that what the app programmer and driver programmer intended are different things. This, in itself is not a cheat. The cheat comes in when the driver programmer doesn't tell people about the change and instead let's people think that a difference in FPS between competitor cards is because of differences in power, rather than differences in what they are trying to render.
It's a matter of trust that graphics cards render things the way the app tells them to. To do otherwise is cheating. Plain and simple.
The IMAX format is 70mm film that has been turned horizontal instead of vertical and the width of the film frame has been tripled. While normal 70mm film is the width of 5 perforations (or 5 sprocket holes), the IMAX® is 15 perforations wide. The area is 20 times larger than a 16mm frame, ten times larger than a 35mm frame and even three times larger than a normal 70mm frame. It's commonly known as 15-perf 70mm.
The ratio is 4:3, so a 35mm widescreen transfer would have the same black bars, top and bottom, that you get when you watch a widescreen film on a non-widescreen TV. However, the transfer for Disney's "Beauty and The Beast" used the same 4:3 framing as for the pan & scan video release, so this technique might be used for other transfers (although I'd prefer it if it wasn't).
The 10x increase in area from 35mm makes creation of an IMAX print from a 35mm negative very difficult. The digital process needs to do a lot more than just smooth the transitions between 35mm grains (the film equivalent of pixels) - it needs to work out the structure of what it is looking at; where the edges are; how it moves - if glitches and artefacts are to be avoided. I hope it works though. Apart from anything else, IMAX theatres have the best sound, picture, seating arrangements and all the rest - there are even specs for the amount of noise the A/C is allowed to make. I'd pay a few dollars to see just the opening sequence of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on IMAX, never mind the rest of the film.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely! I can't believe that some people are saying this isn't cheating!! Here's the deal, prior to any optimisation/cheating... App programmer tells card to render something -> Card renders it the way app programmer tells it to -> User sees what app programmer intended. After optimisation... App programmer tells card to render something -> Card renders it the way app programmer tells it to, but faster -> User sees what app programmer intended. After cheating... Programmer tells card to render something -> Driver programmer decides that, actually app programmer doesn't know what he/she is talking about and shouldn't have told it to render the thing that way and that they know a much better way to render it -> Card renders it the way the driver programmer tells it to, which (surprise!) is faster -> User sees what driver programmer intended. The point is that what the app programmer and driver programmer intended are different things. This, in itself is not a cheat. The cheat comes in when the driver programmer doesn't tell people about the change and instead let's people think that a difference in FPS between competitor cards is because of differences in power, rather than differences in what they are trying to render. It's a matter of trust that graphics cards render things the way the app tells them to. To do otherwise is cheating. Plain and simple.
Don't you mean, "Dude, you're getting a cell!".
The IMAX format is 70mm film that has been turned horizontal instead of vertical and the width of the film frame has been tripled. While normal 70mm film is the width of 5 perforations (or 5 sprocket holes), the IMAX® is 15 perforations wide. The area is 20 times larger than a 16mm frame, ten times larger than a 35mm frame and even three times larger than a normal 70mm frame. It's commonly known as 15-perf 70mm.
The ratio is 4:3, so a 35mm widescreen transfer would have the same black bars, top and bottom, that you get when you watch a widescreen film on a non-widescreen TV. However, the transfer for Disney's "Beauty and The Beast" used the same 4:3 framing as for the pan & scan video release, so this technique might be used for other transfers (although I'd prefer it if it wasn't).
The 10x increase in area from 35mm makes creation of an IMAX print from a 35mm negative very difficult. The digital process needs to do a lot more than just smooth the transitions between 35mm grains (the film equivalent of pixels) - it needs to work out the structure of what it is looking at; where the edges are; how it moves - if glitches and artefacts are to be avoided. I hope it works though. Apart from anything else, IMAX theatres have the best sound, picture, seating arrangements and all the rest - there are even specs for the amount of noise the A/C is allowed to make. I'd pay a few dollars to see just the opening sequence of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on IMAX, never mind the rest of the film.