Talk:Depth buffer: Difference between revisions

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Scaling the depth output)
 
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


Can you provide screens and code, please? --[[user:TomEdwards|TomEdwards]] 12:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide screens and code, please? --[[user:TomEdwards|TomEdwards]] 12:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:As you noticed, the available range of the default depth buffer is very short. 'Scaling the depth output' simply means adjusting the range - do you think the term 'quantify' would make it clearer then? This has nothing to do with 'fog' at all - I was wondering why you would want to compare it anyway. All of the things I mentioned can be done, I personally didn't try the third option of shader replacement yet, that's all, but if standard filesystem rules apply it should be possible. I can provide screenshots of a larger depthbuffer in source with 32bit precision or anyone could take a look at zeno clash's depth buffer which has increased range, yet 8bit precision -> strong colour banding, but I don't think that's necessary as it looks the same (well, my depth is inverted), it just has another range.
:I tried explaining how it works with more detail, for anyone who could care about that anyway, that part should make clear why 'scaling/quantifying' the output should be the correct term. --[[User:Biohazard 90|Biohazard]] 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:40, 16 January 2011

Scaling the depth output

This section doesn't make any sense. What does "scaling" the output mean? I would have thought making the depth 'fog' extend further, yet the page doesn't say that. And then what exactly are we being told to do? "Render all opaque geometry in a scene with modified shaders" is incredibly vague, and the rest of the section is apparently telling us all about something we can't do?

Can you provide screens and code, please? --TomEdwards 12:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As you noticed, the available range of the default depth buffer is very short. 'Scaling the depth output' simply means adjusting the range - do you think the term 'quantify' would make it clearer then? This has nothing to do with 'fog' at all - I was wondering why you would want to compare it anyway. All of the things I mentioned can be done, I personally didn't try the third option of shader replacement yet, that's all, but if standard filesystem rules apply it should be possible. I can provide screenshots of a larger depthbuffer in source with 32bit precision or anyone could take a look at zeno clash's depth buffer which has increased range, yet 8bit precision -> strong colour banding, but I don't think that's necessary as it looks the same (well, my depth is inverted), it just has another range.
I tried explaining how it works with more detail, for anyone who could care about that anyway, that part should make clear why 'scaling/quantifying' the output should be the correct term. --Biohazard 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)