Re: is there an analog of postscript for monitors?: why raster and not vector?
- From: Jerry Peters <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:20:41 GMT
Rahul <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vladimir Florinski <vflorins@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:pan.2008.07.17.01.53.30But how long does it take for the printer to produce each image?
@ucr.edu:
This is not really correct. All modern printers are of a raster kind.
Most have a built-in software front-end that takes vector data and
rasterizes it to become suitable for output.
Displays are raster devices, like printers. At least two vector front-
ends are available: OpenGL and Direct3D. Rasterization is done by the
graphic card's GPU.
Thanks Vladimir. True; but doesn't it make sense to rasterize as close to
the final device as possible? Like printers do. That way the data pipeline
can be kept as compact as possible most of the way. Opens the possibility
of using low-bandwidth pipelines like USB and bluetooth. We have USB
printers but few USB monitors, as yet.
A monitor has to produce an image perhaps 70 or more times per
_second_. The bandwith requirements are a great deal larger for a
monitor than for the average printer.
Jerry
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: is there an analog of postscript for monitors?: why raster and not vector?
- Next by Date: Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Previous by thread: Re: is there an analog of postscript for monitors?: why raster and not vector?
- Next by thread: Re: is there an analog of postscript for monitors?: why raster and not vector?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|