NVIDIA Are the Industry Standard Shader Driving Force?

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by Dave Baumann, Jun 19, 2003.

  1. 2senile

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fantasy Land
    Same here but it's improved now. I managed to force myself to stop banging my head on my computer desk.


    I'll keep my eyes open for that one.

    & now I'll return to my Lurking & learning mode. ;)
     
  2. Heathen

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought that was the R400? :wink:

    ...ok I'll shut up now.
     
  3. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile

    Well, he's just stuck in that awkward stage of learning how to separate the technical wheat from the marketing chaff...;) Not knowing how to separate technical jargon and marketing spin from real technical information is a malady usually cured by experience with the products in question, most of the time. (Hopefully...;))
     
  4. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,230
    Likes Received:
    1,752
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    ROFLMMFAO~~~~

    That sums it up perfectly for me too! 8)

    That's one thing I really like about the "lurk & learn at B3D" school of continuing education; you got some folks here who when they make comments you KNOW that you can pretty much treat it as straight from the textbook, 'specially considering a number of the members here pretty much write those textbooks. :lol:

    Please never change folks, this forum really is top-notch in every way I can think of. :)
     
  5. Pete

    Pete Moderate Nuisance
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    333
    Jen-Hsun's "hallucinogenic" comment wasn't particularly positive, though I don't remember when it was printed (in that Wired article, IIRC).

    As for nV making it a practice of disparaging other cards, take a trip in the history machine back to their Kyro whitepaper.

    I'm sorry, since when did bilinear = "adaptive" and trilinear = "full-blown?"

    radar, are you a game developer or a hobbyist? If so, are you a recent one (meaning, post-3dfx)?
     
  6. Jima13

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    La Grande, Oregon
  7. lar2r

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 10, 2003
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    radar - I've got both a 5800 Ultra and a GF4. I can tell you that I can't shut off the 5800's "adaptive" aniso. I don't know if the 5900 Ultra is any better but I can say this: The GF4 looks much better than the FX card in Aniso / or AA. The FX textures look blurry (as if AF is not working)

    If you run those filtering tests too, the GF4 patterns look like the old "application" mode while the FX doesn't. Don't know if this means anything but there is lower filtering going on with the FX in just normal modes. (but again when you are playing without AA or AF I can't really tell)

    If you really like NVIDIA so much I'd wait for the NV4x series to see if things improve.

    -lar2r
     
  8. CybrSage

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    nVidia, ATI, Kyle, life, the universe, and everything.

    Whew!

    Reading through this thread reminds me of why they are called threads...they weave in and out of the fabric, continuously changing direction.

    HardOCP. I emailed them asking why they have not reported on the nVidia cheat thing (before they said it was not a cheat). I was nice and respectful. At the time I honestly thought it was a good site and I based many decisions off their positions. I was flamed as a reply, cussing and name calling and many derogatory remarks. I started looking around at other sites, and at their own forum, and found that [H] is actually only good for the links to OTHER people's reviews. Good thing to learn!

    nVidia, ATI. I used to like them. I recommended them (as I am sure most people did). I used ATI because I have bad eyesight, and needed the crisper images. I put up with bad drivers and slower performance due to my need for good images. Now, ATI has surpassed nVidia in every department except cheating. They used to be ahead in that one, but as nVidia has tried to dominate everything, they definately dominated the cheating department, and ATI is slowly but surely becoming honest. Wow. And the drivers are stable and good now too! (cat 3.5 released today, folks).

    Does it matter how well ATI runs Dawn? Not until the naked version is released. :wink:

    What was my point? I am not sure anymore, I forgot. Hmmm....maybe it was, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
     
  9. CybrSage

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: nVidia, ATI, Kyle, life, the universe, and everything.

    I just remembered it was Steve I talked to, not Kyle...
     
  10. martrox

    martrox Old Fart
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida USA
    I so miss Mr. Adams..........
     
  11. TheMightyPuck

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Moist Cheddar Killer Hideout
  12. TheMightyPuck

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Moist Cheddar Killer Hideout
    Shoot it just occured to me that Nvidia could compete with the r420 (playfully referred to as Snoop Dogg by the engineers) by overclocking their next core and putting a BongFX(tm) water cooler on it.
     
  13. micron

    micron Diamond Viper 550
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    U.S.
  14. Snyder

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    To contribute to this thread going completely OT: Funny site, that. 8)

    "Always remember "Rape, pillage, THEN burn." It sucks when you get it backwards." (from SirSmokey) - ROFL! Could be straight from Cohen the barbarian. ;)
     
  15. XForce

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: ROFLMMFAO~~~~

    Yep, more power to b3d! 8)
    I learned more on 3d tech the last 4 month than the last 4 years.
    Ironically, I guess I have to thank nVidia and their itches for that.. :wink:

    Cheers,
    Mac
     
  16. darkblu

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    22
    russ, you've let you real-world experience with optical phenonena smear you otherwise firm perception of the math fundamentals of the synthetic world that surrounds us. spit out that red pill you've taken today :)

    perspective transformation, of the type we commonly use today, does not account for real lens effects such as fish-eye. simply because with the computer graphics projection you're dealing with projection planes, and there's no such effect as real refraction going on (otherwise caused by the lens). IOW the perspective projection of a long planar object which is parallel to the view plane in camera space would yield a still parallel-to-the-viewplane object in screen space. i.e. no change in the depth values of the vertices of the object realtive to each other would occur. thus nothing to bring up surface anisotropy into the picture. see?
     
  17. RussSchultz

    RussSchultz Professional Malcontent
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    HTTP 404
    Hrm.

    So, if I'm 1 "cm" from a piece of paper (and its perpendicular to my eye), if my viewport is such that I can see the entire piece of paper, wouln't there be a need to take more samples at the edge? (completely ignore lenses and refraction and such).

    Code:
    |    
    |    
    |.    
    |    
    | .
    |    
    |..<---
    |    
    | .
    |    
    |.    
    |    
    |    
    
    assume the eye is the arrow. Wouldn't you need to take more samples at the top and bottom of the plane, than the middle in order to avoid texture aliasing?
     
  18. andypski

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Santa Clara
    Not as long as you are looking straight ahead, because the view-space Z of all the edge vertices of the sheet of paper are the same as long as you are looking straight at the paper. As soon as you alter your eye direction and look at any angle across the paper then the view-space Z of the vertices are no longer equal and you will introduce a perspective effect. So in the diagram you show with the eye looking straight ahead, the number of samples must remain the same over the whole surface.

    To quote Foley and Van Dam on perspective projections:

    "The perspective projections of any set of parallel lines that are not parallel to the projection plane converge to a vanishing point."

    Lines that are parallel to the projection plane do not converge, so the ratio of sampling must remain constant.
     
  19. darkblu

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    22
    you cannot ignore lenses and refraction. imagine for a moment that your eye on that picture instead of being spherical-lens-based was a flat (say, CCD-based) projection panel (w/o a lens infront of it, that is). now, what would you see? /* pause */ you'd see exactly that area of the paper sheet which corresponds to the footprint of your 'planar'-eye on it (for simplicity we assume there's only directional light and the reflective properties of the sheet of paper are perfect.). something like that:

    Code:
    | <- sheet of paper    
    |    
    |    
    |    
    |.......| <- your eye
    |       |
    |       |
    |       |
    |.......|
    |
    |    
    |    
    |    
    
    as you can quess you'd get the image sans a single bit of anisotropy on the paper surface. now, that would correspond to 'parallel projection', which is nicely modelled by the, well, parallel projection in computer graphics. now enter the perspective projection: some smart guys decided they could account for the non-planar nature of human vision and still keep the flat projection plane. so they got things to the following state

    Code:
    |.    
    |    
    | .    
    |    
    |   .|
    |    |  
    |....|
    |    |  
    |   .|
    |    
    | .   
    |    
    |.    
    
    what the above means is that the sheet of paper is shrinked so it fits your planar eye now (sort of as if you had a lens eye w/ peripheral vision) but the image is still undistorted, i.e. you still get a constant ratio paper_area / sensor_panel_area throughout the image you receive.

    now, to actually get your fisheye effect but keep your planar eye, it would take a transformation which would distort the paper sheet as this:

    Code:
    \...................|
      \                 |
       |                |
        |               |
         |              |
         |              |
        |               |
       |                |
      /                 | <- this being your planar eye
    /...................|
    
    see now?
     
  20. RussSchultz

    RussSchultz Professional Malcontent
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    HTTP 404
    For being a person that's usually quite spatially apt, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this.

    It would seem as the 'planar eye' moves closer to the surface, and you're consequently enlarging the field of vision, you're going to have to sample the surface differently--simple geometry should tell us this:

    A 1 degree arc in your vision will cover more surface area of the plane on the outer edges than in the center,.

    Or am I just bumping up against the edges of the approximation where the mathematical model ceases to be adequate?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...