it has a relative rather than an absolute address -
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Pall Thayer wrote:
James, some of what you say is correct but, as I understand it, a voxel
generally doesn't "own" a particular place in a construction. It's placement
is dependent on when it gets drawn within the construction of the whole. So,
time is of the essence... so to speak.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:22 PM, James Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:10:04 -0800
Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/12/13 08:00 AM, James Morris wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 2013 2:27 PM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Volume = space = time, no?
> >>
> >
> > no I wouldn't say so.
>
> In spacetime it is.
>
The pixel has physical material form, as in the thing in your
LCD/Plasma/CRT screen - or a direct correlation with a physical
material thing. But a voxel does not have a direct physical
correlation. There is no display device with a three
dimensional resolution, such as 1024x768x640 (ie 3D SVGA).
The voxel is only an abstraction and is only 3D in the sense
that all
the data surrounding it ends up projected onto a two dimensional
plane
causing it to appear to be a scene existing in 3 dimensions.
Time is
not a necessary ingredient...
Time is only required when if the observer is to have a role in
that
scene ie a 3d 1st person game vs say, scientific imaging
software
where interaction is not time based and responding... difficult
to
think of concrete example.. I'm thinking programs typed in from
magazines that played with basic 3D graphics. There was no time
in
them.
That's why I say no space != time, but to be honest I'm not
entirely
convinced myself. The other part of the argument though (there's
probably some form of criticism easily applied to this) is it
not rather
arbitrary to insist a voxel is time based but a pixel is not?
vaguely related links:
http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/451611-bringing-back-voxel-starforge-cube
-world-and-return-graphical-style/
http://imgur.com/gallery/Rs9kJ2D
james.
> And I mean in theory any human artwork not on a 1970s American
deep
> space probe will fall into the sun in a few billion years.
>
> But this does seem more like spimes than voxels:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spime
>
> >> we're not talking about milk here are we?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f9BII36vI
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************
==
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552
music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/sg.txt
==
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
