Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.165.39] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 4710119 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:51:08 +0200 Received: (qmail 9278 invoked from network); 9 May 2012 14:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (173.247.4.230) by smtpauth14.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.39) with ESMTP; 09 May 2012 14:52:42 -0000 Subject: Re: [AE] made in CS6 References: From: Greg Balint Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5318573E-D304-4345-8614-F92403796D23 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <37397E28-91C2-463E-9E51-6364CCA5EAF6@delrazor.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:53:04 -0400 To: After Effects Mail List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-5318573E-D304-4345-8614-F92403796D23 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I agree Mylenium, I was super excited to hear about the 3d stuff being added to AE. I thought.= "man, this will save me a lot of time and effort coordinating renders from c= 4d by just doing simple things right in AE." But I have to say I'm severely d= isappointed with this. I figured from the simple extrusion feature that this= would be some quick turn around 3d feature, but with all of that horsepower= , and still 40 minutes render? I could probably render the same scene, with= native DoF and motion blur directly in C4d in about 5 minutes in C4D.=20 Now I'm not bashing the example piece itself. But I can't see how I'd even b= e able to stand watching all of that processing power take forever for a 3d e= xtrusion of some text with reflections and shadows.=20 No doubt this is a welcome feature for people who don't have any 3d package t= o work with, but for those of us that do, I don't see any of us using this f= eature for production environment speedy work.=20 I also wonder why the 3d implementation was decided to work solely on gpu pr= ocessing, when CPU is obviously more versatile and powerfulas seen with 3d p= ackages that don't use gpu at all for rendering. As a PC user with a beefy A= TI card installed, it surely feels like Adobe has its pockets lined with Nvi= dia money.=20 Just my opinion here, but I'm way more excited about the caching features th= ey've added.=20 ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer delRAZOR.com/ On May 9, 2012, at 10:20 AM, "mylenium@mylenium.de" w= rote: > Nobody is arguing the need for some sort of 3D in AE (though not exactly t= hat kind of 3D as far as I'm concerned) and the marketability of such a feat= ure, but seriously, if it takes 40 minutes on a machine with a beefy 4000 se= ries Quadro and an additional Tesla board, then something is severely is ask= ew and one can only wonder why the AE team chose this approach in the first p= lace. I wouldn't even wanna know how long it takes to render this if AE fall= s back to its software mode. 2 hours? 3 hours? 5 hours? In a day and age whe= re software renderers in 3D programs churn out frames with full global illum= ination and all the bells and whistles in minutes even without any GPU invol= vement, what AE has to offer compares poorly. >=20 > Mylenium > [Pour Myl=C3=A8ne, ange sur terre]=20 > -----------------------------------------=20 > www.mylenium.de=20 >=20 >=20 > Steve Oakley hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 16:07 geschrieb= en:=20 >=20 > I don't have or use C4D so I couldn't render anything 3D that way. AE is m= y app of choice, its what I have in front of me to use. please keep in mind t= his is all new for AE - ray tracing and the start of real 3D. its an entirel= y new look / capabilities. for how long have people asked for real 3D in AE= ? forever. I don't think knocking is right. > =20 > 16 photons was about right. I had done some lower passes and it was too gr= ainy. not saying that wasn't a good look...I'll go check the project again. > =20 > I've seen some other really nice work done which will hopefully surface s= oon. > =20 > S >=20 > On May 9, 2012, at 8:37 AM, James WIlson wrote: >=20 > I think 16 photons might be overkill considering the dark nature and minim= al amount of objects to bounce light off of. Maybe it could have been render= ed in less time with the same results if you took that setting down. It does= look nice. > =20 >=20 > On May 9, 2012, at 2:47 AM, mylenium@mylenium.de wrote: >=20 > Yeah, and the same stuff probably renders in the same time in C4D - withou= t any GPU fancies required and on a 3 year old machine. Ridiculous and nothi= ng to write home about. > =20 > Mylenium=20 > =20 > [Pour Myl=C3=A8ne, ange sur terre]=20 > -----------------------------------------=20 > www.mylenium.de=20 > =20 >=20 > Steve Oakley < steveo@practicali.com > hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 07:27 geschri= eben:=20 >=20 > > ok... now that AE CS6 is loose I'll show you some titles I made for my w= eb shows. CS6 rendered with Q4000 + Tesla C2075 in 40 min as I recall... tha= ts with cranked up DoF, motion blur, 16 photons / pixel - ie real nice setti= ngs :) its quick, don't blink. totally done in AE=20 > >=20 > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DX-ZNVyGSVIY&feature=3Dyoutu.be=20 > >=20 >=20 > =20 --Apple-Mail-5318573E-D304-4345-8614-F92403796D23 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
I agree Mylenium,

I was super excited to hear about the 3d stuff being added t= o AE. I thought. "man, this will save me a lot of time and effort coordinati= ng renders from c4d by just doing simple things right in AE." But I have to s= ay I'm severely disappointed with this. I figured from the simple extrusion f= eature that this would be some quick turn around 3d feature, but with all of= that horsepower, and still 40 minutes render?  I could probably render= the same scene, with native DoF and motion blur directly in C4d in about 5 m= inutes in C4D. 

Now I'm not bashing the exampl= e piece itself. But I can't see how I'd even be able to stand watching all o= f that processing power take forever for a 3d extrusion of some text with re= flections and shadows. 

No doubt this is a wel= come feature for people who don't have any 3d package to work with, but for t= hose of us that do, I don't see any of us using this feature for production e= nvironment speedy work. 


I also= wonder why the 3d implementation was decided to work solely on gpu processi= ng, when CPU is obviously more versatile and powerfulas seen with 3d package= s that don't use  gpu at all for rendering. As a PC user with a beefy A= TI card installed, it surely feels like Adobe has its pockets lined with Nvi= dia money. 

Just my opinion here, but I'm way m= ore excited about the caching features they've added. 

//= //Greg Balint
///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer

On May 9, 2= 012, at 10:20 AM, "mylenium@mylenium= .de" <mylenium@mylenium.de> wrote:

=20 =20 =20

Nobody is arguing the need for some sort of 3D in AE (though not exactly= that kind of 3D as far as I'm concerned) and the marketability of such a fe= ature, but seriously, if it takes 40 minutes on a machine with a beefy 4000 series Quadro and an additional Tesla board, the= n something is severely is askew and one can only wonder why the AE team cho= se this approach in the first place. I wouldn't even wanna know how long it t= akes to render this if AE falls back to its software mode. 2 hours? 3 hours?= 5 hours? In a day and age where software renderers in 3D programs churn out= frames with full global illumination and all the bells and whistles in minu= tes even without any GPU involvement, what AE has to offer compares poorly.<= /span>


Mylenium

[Pour Myl=C3=A8ne, ange sur terre]
-----------------------------------------
www.mylenium.de


Steve Oakley <steveo@practica= li.com> hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 16:07 geschrieben:

I don't have or use C4D so I couldn't render anything 3D that way. AE i= s my app of choice, its what I have in front of me to use. please keep i= n mind this is all new for AE - ray tracing and the start of real 3D. its an= entirely new look / capabilities.  for how long have people asked for r= eal 3D in AE ? forever. I don't think knocking is right.
 
16 photons was about right. I had done some lower passes and it wa= s too grainy. not saying that wasn't a good look...I'll go check the project= again.
 
 I've seen some other really nice work done which will hopefu= lly  surface soon.
 
S

On May 9, 2012, at 8:37 AM, James WIlson wrote:

I think 16 photons might be overkill considering the dark nature an= d minimal amount of objects to bounce light off of. Maybe it could have been= rendered in less time with the same results if you took that setting down. I= t does look nice.
 

On May 9, 2012, at 2:47 AM, mylenium@mylenium.de= wrote:

Yeah, and the same stuff probably renders in the same ti= me in C4D - without any GPU fancies required and on a 3 year old machine. Ri= diculous and nothing to write home about.

 

Mylenium 

 

[Pour Myl=C3=A8ne, ange sur terre]
-----------------------------------------
www.mylenium.de

 


Steve Oakley < steveo@practicali.com= > hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 07:27 geschrieben:

> ok... now that  AE CS6 is loose I'll show you some t= itles I made for my web shows. CS6 rendered with Q4000 + Tesla C2075 in 40 m= in as I recall... thats with cranked up DoF, motion blur, 16 photons / pixel= - ie real nice settings :) its quick, don't blink. totally done in AE
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DX-ZNVyGSVIY&feature=3D= youtu.be
> 

 
=20
= --Apple-Mail-5318573E-D304-4345-8614-F92403796D23--