Scanline Rendering - Comparison With Z-buffer Algorithm

Comparison With Z-buffer Algorithm

(This section is misleading, because it implies that Z-buffering and scanline rendering are mutually exclusive, which is not the case. Z-buffering is primarily a method of ensuring that occlusion between objects is calculated correctly, and is often used in conjunction with scanline rasterizers. Maybe this section should be removed, because Z-buffering isn't an algorithm to contrast with -- rather it is an augmentation to scanline rasterization.)

The main advantage of scanline rendering over Z-buffering is that visible pixels are only ever processed once—a benefit for the case of high resolution or expensive shading computations.

In modern Z-buffer systems, similar benefits can be gained through rough front-to-back sorting (approaching the 'reverse painters algorithm'), early Z-reject (in conjunction with hierarchical Z), and less common deferred rendering techniques possible on programmable GPUs.

Scanline techniques working on the raster have the drawback that overload is not handled gracefully.

The technique is not considered to scale well as the number of primitives increases. This is because of the size of the intermediate datastructures required during rendering—which can exceed the size of a Z-buffer for a complex scene.

Consequently, in contemporary interactive graphics applications, the Z-buffer has become ubiquitous. The Z-buffer allows larger volumes of primitives to be traversed linearly, in parallel, in a manner friendly to modern hardware. Transformed coordinates, attribute gradients, etc., need never leave the graphics chip; only the visible pixels and depth values are stored.

Read more about this topic:  Scanline Rendering

Famous quotes containing the words comparison with and/or comparison:

    In everyone’s youthful dreams, philosophy is still vaguely but inseparably, and with singular truth, associated with the East, nor do after years discover its local habitation in the Western world. In comparison with the philosophers of the East, we may say that modern Europe has yet given birth to none.
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.”
    Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)