>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Raaagh:
You're points seem a bit wishy wash, and I don't find that they refute this presentation. But it does sound like bullshit.
It could be argued that polygons are the biggest limiting factor, especially if you are talking in the context of computation (which the presentation is). If there was infinite polygons, workflow would be much simpler.
I don't get why you say point clouds dont scale as you zoom in, I'm sure you could do pretty awesome pruning, searching, grouping at different point-resolutions. It does seem like each acndidate point/group of points's would have to be in volatile memory, with some groups/branches streamed off the HDD many times per frame. I just really need some numbers to believe the CPU-HDD bridge can handle that.
I would of been convinced by some indication of the processing required to find a single pixel.

I don't see how what I said was "wishy washy"...it was either right or wrong. But 3D graphics is a rather complex field, and I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I should, so let's see if I can make it simpler.
Forget zoom altogether...I'm apparently not expressing my view clearly there.
1) A point cloud requires vastly more memory than polygons. This is a simple fact, and not really subject for debate...3 points define a triangle while 1 triangle defines an infinite number of points. That's an infinite compression rate.
2) With today's video cards, converting polygons to pixels (points) is -not- the limiting factor. The bottleneck (what's slowing the process down) is moving the data to the video card in the first place, not processing.
3) So, a solution that trades increased memory requirements for reduced processing (like this video suggests) is exactly backwards, and provides no benefit in the real world. It would be like streamlining a car to reduce wind resistance when the engine can only reach speeds of 5mph...pointless.
And then there are other more complex problems, polygons offer many other conveniences that points do not. Consider collision detection. Polygons are perfect for that, if something cuts through a polygon, you have a collision. Points are useless for such operations. If you have points A, B, and C, where's the surface you're supposed to collide with? In fact, that question is not even answerable, because a raw collection of points doesn't -have- that information.




Wishy washy comment was made about your arguments, as they are opinion & mainly because you injected your own context into the debate.

1) Crucially, a line is a an infinite number of points.
Possibly when they talk of a "point-cloud" they are meaning an effective "point cloud" once you do the calculations.
You dont need to keep "infinite" points in memory you just need the functions to access them. It might be a series of functions defining a 2/3d map, already been doing this for years in software and hundreds if not thousands of years on paper (nurbs/splines, (beziel curves)

2-a) Converting polygons to pixels is a big computation step, specifically rendering the polygons.

2-b) Too many polygons would saturate the PCI bridge...if they didn't first invent PCI-express, crossfire and the next gen standards for PCIe. Its a roadmap coupling of processing unit and bridge which we have been seeing for the last 20 years. The new PCIe will have 8gb per second, which is EXPECTED to HANDLE the next gen cards.

3) This is where we agree there could be a problem, but I am far less zealous about the impossibility of it (I still think its bullshit).



RE: Collision detection
You seem to be straw-manning the issue, who mentioned that you would need to do away with polygon math in games? Collision detection in games does not occur with the rendered polygons (expect in rare examples) - it occurs with proxy objects (ie invisible, simple 3d shapes)

But just as for the sake of shits n giggles, IF these guys have a magic algorithm for rendering, then it would be academic to create a low res concave or convex proxy object. You could have points defining centres of clusters etc - like it would be doable...IF there is a magic algorithm...

You invoke the "impossible" clause to much - if you are a software developer (like I) I hope you start channelling more Kevin Garnett.


HOWEVER...I happen to agree that this is all too good to be true, and there doesn't seem to be anyway around doing MASSIVE amounts of calculations. I hope to be proved wrong.

Also if its been languishing for years, its almost certainly bullshit: games developers appropriate new technology with gusto from what I have seen.

>> ^Raaagh:
You're points seem a bit wishy wash, and I don't find that they refute this presentation. But it does sound like bullshit.
It could be argued that polygons are the biggest limiting factor, especially if you are talking in the context of computation (which the presentation is). If there was infinite polygons, workflow would be much simpler.
I don't get why you say point clouds dont scale as you zoom in, I'm sure you could do pretty awesome pruning, searching, grouping at different point-resolutions. It does seem like each acndidate point/group of points's would have to be in volatile memory, with some groups/branches streamed off the HDD many times per frame. I just really need some numbers to believe the CPU-HDD bridge can handle that.
I would of been convinced by some indication of the processing required to find a single pixel.


I don't see how what I said was "wishy washy"...it was either right or wrong. But 3D graphics is a rather complex field, and I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I should, so let's see if I can make it simpler.

Forget zoom altogether...I'm apparently not expressing my view clearly there.

1) A point cloud requires vastly more memory than polygons. This is a simple fact, and not really subject for debate...3 points define a triangle while 1 triangle defines an infinite number of points. That's an infinite compression rate.
2) With today's video cards, converting polygons to pixels (points) is -not- the limiting factor. The bottleneck (what's slowing the process down) is moving the data to the video card in the first place, not processing.
3) So, a solution that trades increased memory requirements for reduced processing (like this video suggests) is exactly backwards, and provides no benefit in the real world. It would be like streamlining a car to reduce wind resistance when the engine can only reach speeds of 5mph...pointless.

And then there are other more complex problems, polygons offer many other conveniences that points do not. Consider collision detection. Polygons are perfect for that, if something cuts through a polygon, you have a collision. Points are useless for such operations. If you have points A, B, and C, where's the surface you're supposed to collide with? In fact, that question is not even answerable, because a raw collection of points doesn't -have- that information.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Sorry, this guy's just full of shit.
Point clouds don't scale as you zoom in, for one thing...that's a real serious flaw, as it means you need more points for a decent zoomable model than most computers have memory.
Second, polygon processing isn't the biggest bottleneck...creating the art is. Using point clouds isn't going to help at all in that area, it'll likely make it worse.
Third, every single graphics engine out there has 3d search algorithms and means for limiting the objects to be displayed, there's nothing new in that.
Bottom line, this screams snake-oil, and I'll believe it when I see it, just like the Phantom game console.


You're points seem a bit wishy wash, and I don't find that they refute this presentation. But it does sound like bullshit.

It could be argued that polygons are the biggest limiting factor, especially if you are talking in the context of computation (which the presentation is). If there was infinite polygons, workflow would be much simpler.

I don't get why you say point clouds dont scale as you zoom in, I'm sure you could do pretty awesome pruning, searching, grouping at different point-resolutions. It does seem like each acndidate point/group of points's would have to be in volatile memory, with some groups/branches streamed off the HDD many times per frame. I just really need some numbers to believe the CPU-HDD bridge can handle that.

I would of been convinced by some indication of the processing required to find a single pixel.

I feel like that after a bowl of chili. Or prunes.

Before 40, you get "licks". After 40 you get "dicks". So, prepare that sweet brown pruned ring for the coming of birthday dicks.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
I just turned 40!!! please vote for my shitty videos!!! lol

THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH DEMOCRACY!

I would like to see some pruning in the channels as well, but it seems like a frivolous denial of this one, as it could easily be fixed by a re-definition of geek and a proper definition of tech.

Bah, humbug.

For a better wedding

Wedding date comes near at hand. Choosing wedding dresses has been submitted to schedule and also becomes a big tough task for me. My friends tell me the following three styles are fashion now. I have to made comparison among them.

Simple Style：

Simple design could build up to the special character of ladies. However how to emphasize on the merits and avoid demerits is a tough point with simple designs in the international fashion industry. The excellent pruning and material are the best points for success, which could embody the quality and class of wedding dresses perfectly. In my opinions, this style is fit for the girl who owns the strong sense of independence.

Romantic Style:
Maybe all of us would get to term of” romantic” for referred to wedding. And all of us make efforts to set up the natural and romantic mood.　The wedding gowns with hollowed bordering ornament or lovely clarity flowers, mysterious veils. All of these embody romantic style. It is fit for the girls who own the sense of cultural. And I love this very much.

magnificence style：

None could deny that this style could make guys shining all of the time. But only magnificence is not enough, also include the elegant is perfect. It owns the French Royal style, embodies the glorious girls in prom dresses. But I don’t favor it very much for shinning so much.

Reminds me, what are the rationales between culling one's PQ vs keeping it?

Personally, I tend to submit videos *I* like, and forego some that might be easy sifts, so I don't have the heart to prune my PQ; I think they all deserve to be sifted

...although I am a little jealous of EDD's 40.0 votes per video average.

>> ^NetRunner said...

The problem with that analogy is whether Videosift is like your backyard or not. I guess it could be considered a kind of gated community with bylaws, as opposed to a completely public place where all human rights must be respected.

It depends on whether we want to cultivate the community by manually pruning it, or rather think we benefit more from leaving it a little feral and organic.

Thankyou to one and all who make this place great. Dag and Lucky for all the work you guys do in actually keeping this place running.

The host of truly bizarre people who sit at the top of the top sifters ladder, who seem to have nothing else to do with their time but post videos... Thankyou

Those who, as you say, fix and retag and reassign and just generally do the pruning around the edges... thanks.

It allows those of us who just like to drop in here to watch a few videos and get in a few verbal stoushes with people to do so.

Thankyou one and all.

>> ^Crake:
I had a similar experience in Malaysia where I and everyone else got kicked out of a gym because one of the Sultan's sons needed a massage. I'd think America would have more of a resilience against aristocratic tendencies sprouting, and quickly prune them.


Seriously tough - America loves its aristocratic families... if not in politics, then there's the celebrities, and sporting dynasties...

I had a similar experience in Malaysia where I and everyone else got kicked out of a gym because one of the Sultan's sons needed a massage. I'd think America would have more of a resilience against aristocratic tendencies sprouting, and quickly prune them.

Great job prune - creeped me out. I think the terrible 70's video quality helped too.

And WTF is Gary Coleman doing in Utah in the first place?

That is great that there are 2 institutions that aren't even in the United states, that don't run that way. Doesn't make a difference. Comparing apples and prunes.
Last I checked, there were 8 million people in the great country of sweden.
Cram 11 million people into an area 1/10000th the size of sweden, and see what the lines look like then.

^ This will sound childish, but BansheeX, you're a nutbar.

Actually, socialist policies have done nothing but increase, and the problems you describe have gotten worse.

...in America. Other countries' socialist policies, like in say, the whole of Europe, do quite well compared to us.

Nowhere else in the world has a more libertarian system than us, as near as I can tell, and it handicaps us.

In order to make that kind of money in a free market system that protects rights, the person to whom you're referring would essentially have to create every product and service with the utmost quality and awesomeness.

Actually no, they would just need to get enough market power, and apply it ruthlessly to stomp out competition wherever it rises. One of my favorites from the roaring 20's was the rate war. Slash your prices to nearly nothing, and let your company lose a lot of money, on the premise that the smaller company will go bankrupt before you do.

What's a libertarian government going to do about that? Price controls?

98% of the public didn't vote for Ron Paul, therefore 98% of the people don't believe the supreme law is important or should be followed.

Nuttery, Ron Paul is the only politician who believes in the law? Seriously, that's what you're saying? He's probably the only Republican who believes in the law being supreme, but there's more than a few Democrats who believe in the supremacy of law (including some joker with a law degree from Harvard running for President...).

Remember, with small government, he can't bribe a politician for forcibly appropriated money because the politician doesn't have it.

No, but he can still bribe the politicians to look the other way on violation of rights. They do it now, and I'm not sure why it would change, just because the companies have more money to spend (according to your theory).

The bottom line here is that attacking Democrats as being socialist is a huge fucking straw man. We like the free market, and we want it to work. However, unlike market fundamentalists, we realise that neither extreme is good, neither the libertarian nor the pure communist/socialist structure. Most market functions should be decentralized and unrestricted, but just like pruning a tree, some restrictions can aid growth.

Most investment banks are now crying out to be regulated in the wake of this credit crisis, and given that they bribed the government into deregulating them in the first place, that should tell you something.

Democrats in America are moderates -- our goal is not absolute control of the market, and we're as happy to deregulate as regulate (see Clinton's Presidency) but for some reason the conservatives here have adopted an absolutist goal, seeking to destroy government, or at least discredit it.

Bush has done a fantastic job at making government fail in every aspect, but did it make the people embrace the conservatives more strongly?

Hell no, because they were shown all the ways government was helping them, and suddenly had it ripped away -- now they want it back in working order.

Libertarians need to stop pretending they have all the answers already, and that the rest of us are fools. No country, least of all the US, has ever been libertarian. There's no evidence that such a system would even remotely work the way you claim, and in many cases through history regulation has been imposed because the market system was destroying itself, and ruining millions of people's lives.

Like right now.