> Dave Akers wrote:
>
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > Thanks for your message. Here's some information I hope you will find
> > useful:
> >
> > The 3-D texturing fill performance of the Octane2 depends on several
> > factors. Because of the nature of the texture cache, you're likely to get
> > much better performance from certain orientations (slicing along the "r"
> > texture axis is best.) This orientation dependence is most extreme when
> > the window size is small relative to the resolution of the volume. The
> > larger this ratio, the better the performance. For comparison purposes,
> > can you send me the full output of running /usr/gfx/gfxinfo on your
> > system? Thanks...
> >
> > As far as image quality, Octane2 has two framebuffer modes:
> > 10-bytes-per-pixel and 18-bytes-per-pixel. The latter of the two will give
> > you good quality visuals for volume rendering (but slightly less memory
> > left over for textures, since textures and framebuffer share the same
> > memory.)
> >
> > Octane2 does have full RGBA post-interpolation texture lookup tables,
> > which separates it from IMPACT. (IMPACT could do LUMINANCE_ALPHA but not
> > full RGBA in post-interpolation.)
> >
> > I'm not sure about the Crystal Eyes stereo setup off the top of my head,
> > but I will ask around.
> >
> > As time moves forward, we hope to provide some white papers on volume
> > rendering performance and quality across our different machines. This
> > would allow you to make much more informed decisions regarding hardware
> > purchases.
> >
> > Dave
