3d world through a 2d lense

No. Rasterization is the mechanical serial process of finding pixels and mapping them to their 2d canvas. It doesn't involve thinking about the data and image information. However, the algorithms needed in rasterization create useful information that can be reused in the rendering process so that the 2 can be synchronized to use less memory and computation time. You don't even need a frame buffer, get the advantages of asynchronous communication, and you can run your rendering objects from the ethereal portals in your machine basically.

>It doesn't involve thinking about the data and image information
I need to correct myself here. It does but not in detail. It only needs to know position and boundary, the rest is magic. This is where the rendering in tandem is necessary unless the objects were prerendered.

>Rasterization is the mechanical serial process of finding pixels and mapping them to their 2d canvas.

Rasterization is taking polygons in a 3d scene and mapping them onto a 2d plane.

Wait, you are agreeing with me when I said this:

>Rasterization is where a 3 dimensional model is reduced to a 2 dimensional image to be displayed on a pixel matrix.

No rasterization has nothing to do with polygons. You can raster a string/ font, or you can raster an audio recording, or a bitmap. The difference between final image and initial data is the gap rendering fills by customized algorithm in the realm of where that object exists. The rendering is like extracting the platonic world of objects and interpreting them for visualization. The rasterization is the process of framing the interpretations.

>No rasterization has nothing to do with polygons.

Rasterization translates the 3d scene to a 2 dimensional plane to be viewed on the screen, dood.

I'm not talking about setting the polygons in a 3d matrix, I'm talking about representing them on a 2d plane.

It's an illusion that gives the appearance of depth.

Then why do I still need to raster 2d or even 1do data from a memory to a display in a finite time?

1D*

>Then why do I still need to raster 2d or even 1do data from a memory to a display in a finite time?

To display it on a 2 dimensional surface.

You are talking about rasterizing vector information into pixels (vector fonts and such)

Which is the process of translating vector information into a pixel matrix to be displayed on the screen.

IT's the same thing with three dimensional scenes, where the 3d scene is reduced to a series of polygons (vector information) and projected on a pixel matrix, like casting a shadow onto the screen.

>1d information displayed on a 2 dimensional pixel surface

Is such a thing even possible?

What if it's just a bitmap of 1d or 2d space? Am I no longer rastering?

>What if it's just a bitmap of 1d or 2d space? Am I no longer rastering?

>2d

>space

Idk if that's appropriate, wouldn't it just be called a plane?

Also, how would you ever represent a 1d object on a 2d plane?

it would be a line of no width, and thus invisible.

Anyways, bitmaps are already rasterized (or, they are pixel information so rasterizing isn't necessary), unless there is a way to store vector information in bitmap format?

A line. The raster worries about where the line should go and transmits the information necessary for this. The renderer worries about if the line exists in the space being questioned and then shits out the data that the raster is asking for. This is how rastering is a machine like sequential process based in your hardware and rendering is a situational existence based in an objective existence. Each platonic type is described by custom algorithms pointed at situational data. The interface of information and information flow are bridged with the raster monster.

>A line.

Yes, a line... but a line technically has a width of zero, and thus would occupy 0 pixels.

I guess that it is possible to represent a line of zero width as pixels, but then it becomes a 2 dimensional object as opposed to a one dimensional object, but I guess that's just splitting hairs.

>The renderer worries about if the line exists in the space being questioned and then shits out the data that the raster is asking for.

Yes, this is the process that transforms a 3d scene into a 2d image.

>rendering is a situational existence based in an objective existence.

Rendering is when you take a 3d matrix of points that represents an object (or scene), and translates this into polygonal information (vector information) that is then rastered onto a 2 dimensional matrix of pixels.

In a 3d scene, the vector information still exists as 3 dimensional information, and it is the raster that translates this into a 2 dimensional image.

>The interface of information and information flow are bridged with the raster monster.

Yes, the raster is what actually displays the 3d information on the 2 dimensional display, the renderer arranges the scene and translates it into polygonal information that the raster translates to a 2 dimensional image.

I think we are just talking about the same thing.......

this is the dumbest fucking argument i've ever seen in a while. you two just keep repeating the same definitions in different words, hoping the other will accept it.

I need to explain the bridge a little better. It's structure is a standard or class of standards. So both the renderer and the rasterer need to be operating on some core assumptions and coordinated to work in them if there is multiple standards. Example would be

>2d rectangle
>width
>height
>pixel format

Then the rasterer can accommodate the standardized pixel data and know NOTHING about what is being rendered. It only needs to ask the renderer if such a thing exists and cough up the pixels or somebody gets hurt. The renderer needs to translate what the rasterer is asking about based in the situational data concerned (like a monkey picture is sitting in the corner of the display) . It says ok I have a 2d display of height y and width X and it sees the world in monochrome with resolution of 16 bits, and the platonic world tells me that such an object follows rules so it will look like this data in your requested format and it will be smeared across your display in such and such a way according to the rules so that it does or does not exist to the rasterers specific location request.

A line is a sequence of 1s in a stream of 0s. The width is how many 1s are in the sequence. Same for height.

Well, posting with a trip DOES have it's disadvantages...

Sometimes people track me down because of my trip, JUST to hate on me.

But this argument that we are having appears to be a simple misscommunication.

Rasterization is the final part of the rendering process that takes the scene information from the renderer and displays it on the 2d pixel matrix.

The rendered creates the vector information that the raster uses to display the scene on the 2d surface.

We are basically saying the same shit, so honestly I'm not even sure why we are arguing.

>A line is a sequence of 1s in a stream of 0s. The width is how many 1s are in the sequence. Same for height.

a line is a 1 dimensional object that has length but no width or height....

Technically speaking a "Line" would be invisible since it would be 0 atoms across, and thus not reflect any light, or interact with matter or the environment in any meaningful way.

If the line is represented in pixels, it is no longer a "Line", because it now has a width of one, instead of zero, making it a 2 dimensional object instead of a one dimensional object...

and if I recall, the original question was how to raster a 1 dimensional object.

But, again, as I said before, it's just splitting hairs.

Because they arent even close to the same algorithms and I mean you don't even see the possible configurations if this problem. Computational geometry is not a joke. The physical implications of this are serious in how we think about the world. This is basically a proof of a mathematical relationship with hooks into perception of information.

Im not going to argue over this. Just maybe I want precise. I meant line segment with a segment width determined by the count of successive 1s in a backdrop of 0s along a 1d line. If the sequence is in the realm of kek then you get a line.

>Because they arent even close to the same algorithms

IT doesn't even matter.

the raster is what actually displays the 3 dimensional scene on the 2 dimensional monitor.

Hence, my original post:

No. You can't use raster and 3d in the same sentence unless the type of hardware display has a 3d memory configuration, i.e. it's physical image has a 3d component.

>Im not going to argue over this.

then why are you?

> I meant line segment with a segment width determined by the count of successive 1s in a backdrop of 0s along a 1d line.

>line segment
>width

it's not a line then, it's a rectangle.

Just fucking drink bleach you fucking retarded mongoloid trip faggot.

>No. You can't use raster and 3d in the same sentence unless the type of hardware display has a 3d memory configuration, i.e. it's physical image has a 3d component.

You know that we are talking about 3 dimensional scenes being represented on a 2 dimensional surface, right?

Then what do you call it? Distance? I'm talking about from the perspective of the rasterer who operates in 2 dimensions. He draws a line across the screen width. If he draw a segment, then it's a fraction width with an offset . To the renderer, it conjures the line based in the most refined information needed to describe a line, and so he operate in both the 1d and 2d world. The line is 1 dimension. We don't need to delve into the technical details of clipping, wrapping, and time for what a line can mean to the machine.

>Just fucking drink bleach you fucking retarded mongoloid trip faggot.

Show me how it's done.

>Then what do you call it? Distance? I'm talking about from the perspective of the rasterer who operates in 2 dimensions.

Then what the fuck were you talking about a 1 dimensional object for?

>The line is 1 dimension.

Then why does it have a width of 1 pixel, if it's a 1 dimensional object?

The "line" MUST have a width to even be displayed.

a 1 dimensional object would be invisible in the scene, unless you specifically tell the raster to give it width in order to visually represent it, in which case it is no longer a 1 dimensional object, it is now a 2 dimensional object, or at the very least, a 2 dimensional abstraction of an invisible line.

Look at how confused I've got you talking about 1 dimension and you are spouting off about 3d from the start.

>Look at how confused I've got you talking about 1 dimension and you are spouting off about 3d from the start.

Look, shit for brains, the only reason you are even having this conversation with me is because you were lured here by my trip.

No the reason I'm having this conversation is because of your post I first responded to about you talking of something you know nothing about. As someone who has spent much time thinking about rasterization, I found your declarations offensive.

I have you reduced to 1 dimension spinning your paddles and still won't grab on the life lines I throw.

>I have you reduced to 1 dimension spinning your paddles and still won't grab on the life lines I throw.

You are talking out of your ass, splitting hairs, and basically just making a mockery of the discussion in a desperate attempt to "Win" a conversation that didn't even need to happen.

You were lured here by my trip, and are trying to strike down strawman arguments that you are manufacturing.

It's sad, actually... seek help.

Or, you know, tell hillary to let you out of that back room they got you all locked up in.

owait, you're not allowed out.

And you think they will let you live with the information that you posess about their shill tactics.

I'm not splitting hairs. Rasterization is a beast you control with vectors. That's the paintbrush handle. The brush is the raster and it magically draws what's inside the the guy's head by pulling away and dipping into paints and then coming back to the location he's working on. Obviously when a painter is drawing, his vectors are chaotic and correlate to his thoughts. His brain is renderring the actual image based on all kinds of situational data that has nothing to do with a renderer.

Each eye carries out rasteration. These signals are contrasted to produce an internal 3d concept.

I'm not splitting hairs. Rasterization is a beast you control with vectors. That's the paintbrush handle. The brush is the raster and it magically draws what's inside the the guy's head by pulling away and dipping into paints and then coming back to the location he's working on. Obviously when a painter is drawing, his vectors are chaotic and correlate to his thoughts. His brain is renderring the actual image based on all kinds of situational data that has nothing to do with a rasterer aside from the limitations agreed on with the rasterer from the getgo (based on your hardware).

To fuirther this analogy to what I was explaining about working in tandem for maximum efficiency. Imagine if they paintbrush, his arm/hand, and this imagination were linked such that his arm could just wave across the screen and draw what's in his mind. At each instance of time the feedback of the arm and eye tell the mind where the paintbrush is on the canvas and the mind thinks of what should go there and magically changes the paint on the brush without having to pull his hand away. It's a beautiful synchronization of mathematics.

>I'm not splitting hairs.

Are you the supervisor?

Idk what that means

>Idk what that means

uh huh.

And who is YOUR supervisor?

ur mom

>ur mom

Put your supervisor on.

I voted for trump

You need to screen your employees better, they are shit at their job, and they are far too obvious for clandestine work.

Be more discriminating in the future.

Actually, now that I think about it, you don't seem to be the best person for choosing employees... clearly you aren't a very good judge of who would make a quality shill, and your continued employment would probably constitute an escalating probability of exposure for your organization.

It would be wise to replace you with someone less obvious.

...

This guy lost dimensional chess match. Maybe sending him to 1D purgatory was a little harsh.

>This guy lost dimensional chess match. Maybe sending him to 1D purgatory was a little harsh.

Ah, backup has arrived.

Well, back into the fray I guess.

The retina's curvature actually helps convey a lot of information about depth, we necessarily DON'T have 2D retinas.

In flatland, retinas look like the image on the right, because they too can perceive depth along the X axis. They have 2D retinas curved in 2D space, not 1D retinas.