[QUOTE=Dubslow;303204]Expos >58M are TFd to 73.[/QUOTE]
But not 200/day when I last looked on Chris's excellent/informative site.

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;303233]MUCH more to the point, you may not be interested,
but they are typically replies to someone who might be.
Not to mention the "effort" I put in to write the buggers.


STOP F***ING ABOUT YOU JUMPED UP FART[/QUOTE]

Watch it, you'll have some fun if you keep going!

[QUOTE=kracker;303236]Watch it, you'll have some fun if you keep going![/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoLMLFz2Hg8]Fun Fun Fun[/url]

Buddy gonna [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pYU0p6WZhU]Shut you down[/url]

[QUOTE=davieddy;303237][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoLMLFz2Hg8]Fun Fun Fun[/url][/QUOTE]
Number three!! Edit: I've even know most of the words by heart!


PS Over the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/"]last week[/URL] an average of 700 expos/day were upped to 72 bits, while another 100 were upped to 73.

[QUOTE=davieddy;303202]Think a semi-apology is due Chris.[/QUOTE]

Semi-apology semi-accepted... :wink:

[QUOTE=davieddy;303202]Folk would much prefer to TF from 69 to 73 in one go than 72 to 73.[/QUOTE]

That's not actually true.

It takes twice as long to TF to each additional bit level, with about the same chance of finding a factor at each step.

Most TFers do so for the "thrill" of finding factors. Thus, it is human nature to do the work which results in the most factors found per amount of work done. There are, of course, exceptions like Chuck and Craig et al who have always been doing the less desirable "last step", but until we started to run out of candidates below 71 bits, most people were only pledging to that level.

[QUOTE=davieddy;303202]... there was no excuse for not taking every expo >53M to 72 at the rate of 200/day ~ 2 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Could'a, should'a, would'a...

It's been done now.

[QUOTE=chalsall;303296]Semi-apology semi-accepted... :wink:
[/quote]
But points not taken apparently.
[quote]

That's not actually true.

It takes twice as long to TF to each additional bit level, with about the same chance of finding a factor at each step.

Most TFers do so for the "thrill" of finding factors. Thus, it is human nature to do the work which results in the most factors found per amount of work done. There are, of course, exceptions like Chuck and Craig et al who have always been doing the less desirable "last step", but until we started to run out of candidates below 71 bits, most people were only pledging to that level.
[/quote]
Thus proving my point.
But the aim (in this range) is to TF optimally before an LL test is performed.
As such, it involves a selfless effort, and the GPUer should
receive some acknowledgement should a number turn out to be prime.
[quote]

Could'a, should'a, would'a...

It's been done now.[/QUOTE]

It hasn't.
What about the completed and "intend to complete" LLtests >53M ????

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;303297]What about the completed and "intend to complete" LLtests >53M ????[/QUOTE]

Some of them will have turned out to have been wasted efforts.

Boo hoo....

[QUOTE=chalsall;303299]Some of them will have turned out to have been wasted efforts.

Boo hoo....[/QUOTE]
Indeed.

And where did you get the idea that "wagon wheels going backwards"
in Western movies had nothing to do with the frame rate?

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;303300]And where did you get the idea that "wagon wheels going backwards" in Western movies had nothing to do with the frame rate?[/QUOTE]

I said it had nothing to do with the [B][I][U]play-back[/U][/I][/B] frame rate.

It has to do with the sampling rate, and the exposure time of each sample. If the sampling rate is slower than twice the motion period, you're going to get temporal aliasing. It then doesn't matter how fast the playback rate is -- the wheels are still going to appear to be going backwards.

For anyone who is actually seriously interested in this subject, I highly recommend the book "Advanced Renderman" by Apodaca and Gritz.

Being familiar with "aliasing" of all kinds, I will throw another
name into the hat: Nyquist.

Smith
(sorry: I meant Jones)

[QUOTE=davieddy;303297]
It hasn't.
What about the completed and "intend to complete" LLtests >53M ????

David[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;303299]Some of them will have turned out to have been wasted efforts.

Boo hoo....[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davieddy;303300]Indeed.

[/QUOTE]

No use crying over spilt milk, but why do you & George persist in pouring it on the floor deliberately?

David