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.
3d world through a 2d lense
Josiah Mitchell
Bentley Russell
>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.
Thomas Cruz
>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.
Logan Moore
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.
Ethan Williams
>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.
Jonathan Torres
Then why do I still need to raster 2d or even 1do data from a memory to a display in a finite time?
Isaac Anderson
1D*
Austin Clark
>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.
Blake Martinez
>1d information displayed on a 2 dimensional pixel surface
Is such a thing even possible?
Colton Nelson
What if it's just a bitmap of 1d or 2d space? Am I no longer rastering?