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 c4d by just doing simple things right in AE." But I have to say I'm severely disappointed 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.
Now I'm not bashing the example piece itself. But I can't see how I'd even be able to stand watching all of that processing power take forever for a 3d extrusion of some text with reflections and shadows.
No doubt this is a welcome feature for people who don't have any 3d package to work with, but for those of us that do, I don't see any of us using this feature for production environment speedy work.
I also wonder why the 3d implementation was decided to work solely on gpu processing, when CPU is obviously more versatile and powerfulas seen with 3d packages that don't use gpu at all for rendering. As a PC user with a beefy ATI card installed, it surely feels like Adobe has its pockets lined with Nvidia money.
Just my opinion here, but I'm way more excited about the caching features they've added. ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
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 feature, but seriously, if it takes 40 minutes on a machine
with a beefy 4000 series Quadro and an additional Tesla board, then something is severely is askew and one can only wonder why the AE team chose this approach in the first place. I wouldn't even wanna know how long it takes 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 minutes even without any GPU involvement, what AE has to offer compares poorly.
Mylenium
[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre]
-----------------------------------------
www.mylenium.de
Steve Oakley < steveo@practicali.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 is my app of choice, its what I have in front of me to use. please keep in 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 real 3D in AE ? forever. I don't think knocking is right.
16 photons was about right. I had done some lower passes and it was 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 hopefully 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 and 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. It does look nice.
Yeah, and the same stuff probably renders in the same time in C4D - without any GPU fancies required and on a 3 year old machine. Ridiculous and nothing to write home about.
Mylenium
[Pour Mylène, 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 titles I made for my web shows. CS6 rendered with Q4000 + Tesla C2075 in 40 min 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=X-ZNVyGSVIY&feature=youtu.be
>
|
