|
| This Article | ||
| ||
| Share | ||
| Bibliographic References | ||
| Add to: | ||
 Digg  Furl  Spurl  Blink  Simpy  Google  Del.icio.us  Y!MyWeb | ||
| Search | ||
| ||
| ASCII Text | x | ||
| Steven Molnar, Michael Cox, David Ellsworth, Henry Fuchs, "A Sorting Classification of Parallel Rendering," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 23-32, July/August, 1994. | |||
| BibTex | x | ||
| @article{ 10.1109/38.291528, author = {Steven Molnar and Michael Cox and David Ellsworth and Henry Fuchs}, title = {A Sorting Classification of Parallel Rendering}, journal ={IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications}, volume = {14}, number = {4}, issn = {0272-1716}, year = {1994}, pages = {23-32}, doi = {http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/38.291528}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society}, address = {Los Alamitos, CA, USA}, } | |||
| RefWorks Procite/RefMan/Endnote | x | ||
| TY - MGZN JO - IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications TI - A Sorting Classification of Parallel Rendering IS - 4 SN - 0272-1716 SP23 EP32 EPD - 23-32 A1 - Steven Molnar, A1 - Michael Cox, A1 - David Ellsworth, A1 - Henry Fuchs, PY - 1994 VL - 14 JA - IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications ER - | |||
We describe a classification scheme that we believe provides a more structured framework for reasoning about parallel rendering. The scheme is based on where the sort from object coordinates to screen coordinates occurs, which we believe is fundamental whenever both geometry processing and rasterization are performed in parallel. This classification scheme supports the analysis of computational and communication costs, and encompasses the bulk of current and proposed highly parallel renderers - both hardware and software. We begin by reviewing the standard feed-forward rendering pipeline, showing how different ways of parallelizing it lead to three classes of rendering algorithms. Next, we consider each of these classes in detail, analyzing their aggregate processing and communication costs, possible variations, and constraints they may impose on rendering applications. Finally, we use these analyses to compare the classes and identify when each is likely to be preferable.
1. F. Crow, "Parallelism in Rendering Algorithms,"Proc. Graphics Interface 88, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, Calif., 1988, pp. 87-96.
2. N. Gharachorloo et al., "A Characterization of Ten Rasterization Techniques,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Vol. 23, No. 3, July 1989, pp. 355-368.
3. S. Molnar and H. Fuchs, "Advanced Raster Graphics Architecture," inComputer Graphics: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed., J. D. Foley et al., eds., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1990.
4. S. Whitman,Multiprocessor Methods for Computer Graphics Rendering, AK Peters, Wellesley, Mass., 1992.
5. K. Akeley and T. Jermoluk, "High-Performance Polygon Rendering,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Vol. 22, No. 4, Aug. 1988, pp. 239-246.
6. T. W. Crockett and T. Orloff, "A Parallel Rendering Algorithm for MIMD Architectures,"Proc. Parallel Rendering Symposium, ACM Press, New York, 1993, pp. 35-42.
7. S. Whitman, "A Task Adaptive Parallel Graphics Renderer,"IEEE CG&A, Vol. 14, No. 4, July 1994, pp. 41-48.
8. I.E. Sutherland, R.F. Sproull, and R.A. Schumacker, "A Characterization of Ten Hidden Surface Algorithms,"Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 1, Mar. 1974, pp. 1-55.
9. H. Fuchs et al., "Pixel-Planes 5: A Heterogeneous Multiprocessor Graphics System Using Processor-Enhanced Memory,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Vol. 23, No. 3, July 1989, pp. 79-88.
10. K. Akeley, "RealityEngine Graphics,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Aug. 1993, pp. 109-116.
11. M. Deering and S.R. Nelson, "Leo: A System for Cost Effective 3D Shaded Graphics,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Aug. 1993, pp. 101-108.
12. D. Ellsworth, "A New Algorithm for Interactive Graphics on Multicomputers,"IEEE CG&A, Vol. 14, No. 4, July 1994, pp. 33-40.
13. R. Bunker and R. Economy, "Evolution of GE CIG Systems," tech. report, Simulation and Control System Dept., General Electric, Daytona Beach, Fla., 1989.
14. G.C. Roman and T. Kimura, "A VLSI Architecture for Real-Time Color Display of Three-Dimensional Objects,"Proc. IEEE Micro-Delcon, IEEE Press, Piscataway, N.J., 1979, pp. 113-118.
15. C. Shaw, M. Green, and J. Schaeffer, "A VLSI Architecture for Image Composition," inAdvances in Computer Graphics Hardware III, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988, pp. 183-199.
16. S.E. Molnar, J.G. Eyles, and J.W. Poulton, "PixelFlow: High-Speed Rendering Using Image Composition,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Vol. 26, No. 3, July 1992, pp. 231-240.
17. Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation,Freedom Series Technical Report, Salt Lake City, Utah, Oct. 1992.
18. Fujitsu Limited, "AG Series Graphics Technical Overview," Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, San Jose, Calif., 1993.
19. Kubota Pacific Computer,Denali Technical Overview, version 1.0, Santa Clara, Calif., Mar. 1993.
20. National Computer Graphics Association,GPC Quarterly Report, Vol. 2, No. 4, Fairfax, Va., 1992.
21. D. Ellsworth, H. Good, and B. Tebbs, "Distributing Display Lists on a Multicomputer,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics), Vol. 24, No. 2, Mar. 1990, pp. 147-155.
22. F. Parke, "Simulation and Expected Performance Analysis of Multiple Processor Z-buffer Systems,"Computer Graphics(Proc. Siggraph), Vol. 14, No. 3, July 1980, pp. 48-56.
23. M. Cox and P. Hanrahan, "Depth Complexity in Object-Parallel Graphics Architectures,"Proc. Seventh Workshop on Graphics Hardware, Eurographics Technical Report Series, 1992, pp. 204-222.
24. M. Cox and P. Hanrahan, "Pixel Merging for Object-Parallel Rendering: A Distributed Snooping Algorithm."Proc. Parallel Rendering Symp., ACM Press, New York, 1993, pp. 49-56.
25. S. Molnar,Image-Composition Architectures for Real-Time Image Generation, doctoral dissertation, TR 91-046, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Oct. 1991.