Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4710265 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 09 May 2012 17:59:06 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.22] (71-13-195-18.static.eucl.wi.charter.com [71.13.195.18]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MeQHX-1SmpfU1zQd-00PiF7; Wed, 09 May 2012 12:00:40 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C5CD87E-93A4-4F92-BF51-3B78F24FF538" Subject: Re: [AE] made in CS6 Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:00:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: <87A1682B-A99F-4316-8D67-6A87EE384A36@practicali.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:qn0rCQ1frKJ7kwmBSBfYNEFfUYy/6veH1Gx4SVpGw3y 9aA+KvOd9ce+/9qU+qWEVUaVUScyPWRlZlhkGCnML2Y2NESTQR gosva3VvAoh7nYXgze3FCXUuxvZcwKVXI68ZjbIFW8GHsJhF/m VEwTHGLuv6cxfyh33yAIl5x05X0bSyDmhJ3r+XMNFRQ0hzC3DW uDgpST7MNWx7llDzT9ZvfaCJKxYXAtYLBGIU2woyqAO4R6iUx4 Wf9a/Rr9xML7DfxBd4NB1lb9rp2m6VXRzYbd9lkNkert+yi4f1 KbtrYeqKtZwgbKh2fsHeCJHdtv0olF/iWAbW7IsZgW3wUCMRrI 88I+AoIQtNk5NCNyEzgZFbWCMOMxP1p9JHFTfVUFrb0Fkjxh/t 9YmRAWc/lcLfA== --Apple-Mail=_4C5CD87E-93A4-4F92-BF51-3B78F24FF538 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Ok, let me make some clarifications with the project open in front of me = this morning - I did make ONE render pass at the project with really high photons/pixel = that did take a long time. it was too glossy looking. thats the one that = stuck in my head the pass it seems I posted was actually 6 photons/pixel, render time = 12min 12 sec - thats 1080p24 with DoF and motion blur cranked up. lots = of DoF and MB make for longer render times. turn them down / off and = render time can drop to next to nothing. why GPU ? because it provides a level of interactivity you can't get w/o = massive processing. remember this is ray traced, not some OGL phong = shader. while 3D does work on the CPU, yes its slow.=20 the next answer is simpler - CPU's have really kinda of stagnated the = last couple of years. their performance gains have been marginal while = the price of the top performers is thru the roof. its easy to spend $1k+ = per Xeon CPU if you want the current screamer.=20 the latest GPU's are far far far cheaper. the newest 680 is what - $600 = ? adding that to your current and probably a bit old machine will give = it a lot more life then dropping $5k to just get started with a dual = Xeon box. seriously my 8core MBP with Dual GPU's is still very viable = for every day work. the GPU investment as stretched out my purchase = cycle for an entirely new machine quite a bit.=20 you don't have to get a Quadro... I'm going to have a blog post about = this soon... but the short answer is if you do this at home, casually at = work, ect a GFX class card will probably be fine for you. thats a few = hundred $. OTH if you edit all day long, do 3D in AE all day, render at = nite and just pound hard on the machine then a Quadro is what you want = because they are built for this level of continuous use and abuse. if = you make your living from the machine, its not that hard a decision.=20 Prem Pro also greatly benefits from multiple GPU's too, or just faster = ones.=20 So does speed grade and davinci resolve and photoshop given that all my main apps are seeing a lot of great improvements from = more / better GPU's I'm there. also note that Prem Pro has OCL = acceleration now - so ATI GPU's are getting some love too now. it just amazes me.... people say "I want you to max out the CPU's, RAM, = GPU's of my machine. I've got'm, please use them. Then when an app = does...."=20 S On May 9, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Greg Balint wrote: > I agree Mylenium, >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > Just my opinion here, but I'm way more excited about the caching = features they've added.=20 >=20 > ////Greg Balint > ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > delRAZOR.com/ >=20 > On May 9, 2012, at 10:20 AM, "mylenium@mylenium.de" = wrote: >=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 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. >>=20 >> Mylenium >> [Pour Myl=E8ne, ange sur terre]=20 >> -----------------------------------------=20 >> www.mylenium.de=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Steve Oakley hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 16:07 = geschrieben:=20 >>=20 >> 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. >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> I've seen some other really nice work done which will hopefully = surface soon. >> =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 = 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. >> =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 - = without any GPU fancies required and on a 3 year old machine. Ridiculous = and nothing to write home about. >> =20 >> Mylenium=20 >> =20 >> [Pour Myl=E8ne, ange sur terre]=20 >> -----------------------------------------=20 >> www.mylenium.de=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Steve Oakley < steveo@practicali.com > hat am 9. Mai 2012 um 07:27 = geschrieben:=20 >>=20 >> > 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=20 >> >=20 >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DX-ZNVyGSVIY&feature=3Dyoutu.be=20 >> >=20 >>=20 >> =20 --Apple-Mail=_4C5CD87E-93A4-4F92-BF51-3B78F24FF538 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Ok, = let me make some clarifications with the project open in front of me = this morning -

I did make ONE render pass at the = project with really high photons/pixel that did take a long time. it was = too glossy looking. thats the one that stuck in my = head

the pass it seems I posted was actually 6 = photons/pixel, render time 12min 12 sec - thats 1080p24 with DoF and = motion blur cranked up. lots of DoF and MB make for longer render times. = turn them down / off and render time can drop to next to = nothing.

why GPU ? because it provides a level = of interactivity you can't get w/o massive processing. remember this is = ray traced, not some OGL phong shader. while 3D does work on the CPU, = yes its slow. 

the next answer is simpler = - CPU's have really kinda of stagnated the last couple of years. their = performance gains have been marginal while the price of the top = performers is thru the roof. its easy to spend $1k+ per Xeon CPU if you = want the current screamer. 

the latest = GPU's are far far far cheaper. the newest 680 is what - $600 ? adding = that to your current and probably a bit old machine will give it a lot = more life then dropping $5k to just get started with a dual Xeon box. = seriously my 8core MBP with Dual GPU's is still very viable for every = day work. the GPU investment as stretched out my purchase cycle for an = entirely new machine quite a bit. 

you = don't have to get a Quadro... I'm going to have a blog post about this = soon... but the short answer is if you do this at home, casually at = work, ect a GFX class card will probably be fine for you. thats a few = hundred $. OTH if you edit all day long, do 3D in AE all day, render at = nite and just pound hard on the machine then a Quadro is what you want = because they are built for this level of continuous use and abuse. if = you make your living from the machine, its not that hard a = decision. 

Prem Pro also greatly benefits = from multiple GPU's too, or just faster = ones. 

So does speed = grade

and davinci = resolve

and = photoshop

given that all my main apps are = seeing a lot of great improvements from more / better GPU's I'm there. = also note that Prem Pro has OCL acceleration now - so ATI GPU's are = getting some love too now.

it just amazes = me.... people say "I want you to max out the CPU's, RAM, GPU's of my = machine. I've got'm, please use them. Then when an app = does...." 

S

On = May 9, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Greg Balint wrote:

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

On = May 9, 2012, at 10:20 AM, "mylenium@mylenium.de" <mylenium@mylenium.de> = wrote:

=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 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 Myl=E8ne, 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.
 

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

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 Myl=E8ne, 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=3DX-ZNVyGSVIY&feature=3Dyoutu.be=
> 

 
=20

= --Apple-Mail=_4C5CD87E-93A4-4F92-BF51-3B78F24FF538--