Return-Path: Received: from p3plsmtpa07-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.231] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 4710280 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 09 May 2012 18:16:03 +0200 Received: (qmail 31568 invoked from network); 9 May 2012 16:17:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (173.247.4.230) by p3plsmtpa07-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.231) with ESMTP; 09 May 2012 16:17:37 -0000 Subject: Re: [AE] made in CS6 References: From: Greg Balint Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-0DBF03A1-8C39-46DF-928A-7FAF582D2630 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <1A347B27-CE4C-4C2C-B329-F5CB89557874@delrazor.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:17:58 -0400 To: After Effects Mail List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-0DBF03A1-8C39-46DF-928A-7FAF582D2630 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Ok. Well, 12 minutes sounds much better to me.=20 I don't knock that it's pushing all the tech it can, but you have to agree t= hat 40 minutes for what you made feels like its a bit too slow.=20 I hope there's a way to incorporate ATi GPUs in a later release. I've always= preferred them over Nvidia.=20 ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer delRAZOR.com/ On May 9, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > Ok, let me make some clarifications with the project open in front of me t= his morning - >=20 > I did make ONE render pass at the project with really high photons/pixel t= hat did take a long time. it was too glossy looking. thats the one that stuc= k in my head >=20 > 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 d= rop to next to nothing. >=20 > why GPU ? because it provides a level of interactivity you can't get w/o m= assive processing. remember this is ray traced, not some OGL phong shader. w= hile 3D does work on the CPU, yes its slow.=20 >=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 >=20 > the latest GPU's are far far far cheaper. the newest 680 is what - $600 ? a= dding 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. serio= usly my 8core MBP with Dual GPU's is still very viable for every day work. t= he GPU investment as stretched out my purchase cycle for an entirely new mac= hine quite a bit.=20 >=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, e= ct a GFX class card will probably be fine for you. thats a few hundred $. OT= H if you edit all day long, do 3D in AE all day, render at nite and just pou= nd 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 th= e machine, its not that hard a decision.=20 >=20 > Prem Pro also greatly benefits from multiple GPU's too, or just faster one= s.=20 >=20 > So does speed grade >=20 > and davinci resolve >=20 > and photoshop >=20 > given that all my main apps are seeing a lot of great improvements from mo= re / better GPU's I'm there. also note that Prem Pro has OCL acceleration no= w - so ATI GPU's are getting some love too now. >=20 > it just amazes me.... people say "I want you to max out the CPU's, RAM, GP= U's of my machine. I've got'm, please use them. Then when an app does...."=20= >=20 > S >=20 > On May 9, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Greg Balint wrote: >=20 >> I agree Mylenium, >>=20 >> I was super excited to hear about the 3d stuff being added to AE. I thoug= ht. "man, this will save me a lot of time and effort coordinating renders fr= om c4d by just doing simple things right in AE." But I have to say I'm sever= ely 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 horse= power, 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 eve= n be able to stand watching all of that processing power take forever for a 3= d 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 packa= ge to work with, but for those of us that do, I don't see any of us using th= is 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 3= d packages that don't use gpu at all for rendering. As a PC user with a bee= fy 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 fe= ature, but seriously, if it takes 40 minutes on a machine with a beefy 4000 s= eries Quadro and an additional Tesla board, then something is severely is as= kew 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 fa= lls back to its software mode. 2 hours? 3 hours? 5 hours? In a day and age w= here software renderers in 3D programs churn out frames with full global ill= umination and all the bells and whistles in minutes even without any GPU inv= olvement, 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 geschri= eben:=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 min= d this is all new for AE - ray tracing and the start of real 3D. its an enti= rely 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 g= rainy. 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 surfac= e 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 min= imal amount of objects to bounce light off of. Maybe it could have been rend= ered in less time with the same results if you took that setting down. It do= es 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 - with= out any GPU fancies required and on a 3 year old machine. Ridiculous and not= hing 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 gesch= rieben:=20 >>>=20 >>> > ok... now that AE CS6 is loose I'll show you some titles I made for m= y web shows. CS6 rendered with Q4000 + Tesla C2075 in 40 min as I recall... t= hats with cranked up DoF, motion blur, 16 photons / pixel - ie real nice set= tings :) 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-0DBF03A1-8C39-46DF-928A-7FAF582D2630 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Ok. Well, 12 minutes sound= s much better to me. 

I don't knock that it's p= ushing all the tech it can, but you have to agree that 40 minutes for what y= ou made feels like its a bit too slow. 

I hope= there's a way to incorporate ATi GPUs in a later release. I've always prefe= rred them over Nvidia. 

////Greg Balint
///Art Director / Mo= tion Graphics Designer

On May 9, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:<= br>
Ok, let me make some c= larifications 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 th= at stuck in my head

the pass it seems I posted was a= ctually 6 photons/pixel, render time 12min 12 sec - thats 1080p24 with DoF a= nd motion blur cranked up. lots of DoF and MB make for longer render times. t= urn them down / off and render time can drop to next to nothing.
<= br>
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 pho= ng 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 t= he price of the top performers is thru the roof. its easy to spend $1k+ per X= eon CPU if you want the current screamer. 

the= latest GPU's are far far far cheaper. the newest 680 is what - $600 ? addin= g that to your current and probably a bit old machine will give it a lot mor= e 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 G= PU 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 i= f you do this at home, casually at work, ect a GFX class card will probably b= e fine for you. thats a few hundred $. OTH if you edit all day long, do 3D i= n AE all day, render at nite and just pound hard on the machine then a Quadr= o is what you want because they are built for this level of continuous use a= nd abuse. if you make your living from the machine, its not that hard a deci= sion. 

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

So does= speed grade

and davinci resolve

and photoshop

given that all my main apps ar= e seeing a lot of great improvements from more / better GPU's I'm there. als= o note that Prem Pro has OCL acceleration now - so ATI GPU's are getting som= e 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 excite= d to hear about the 3d stuff being added to AE. I thought. "man, this will s= ave me a lot of time and effort coordinating renders from c4d by just doing s= imple things right in AE." But I have to say I'm severely disappointed with t= his. I figured from the simple extrusion feature that this would be some qui= ck turn around 3d feature, but with all of that horsepower, and still 40 min= utes render?  I could probably render the same scene, with native DoF a= nd 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 h= ow I'd even be able to stand watching all of that processing power take fore= ver 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 a= ny of us using this feature for production environment speedy work. 


I also wonder why the 3d implementatio= n was decided to work solely on gpu processing, when CPU is obviously more v= ersatile and powerfulas seen with 3d packages that don't use  gpu at al= l for rendering. As a PC user with a beefy ATI card installed, it surely fee= ls like Adobe has its pockets lined with Nvidia money. 

<= /div>
Just my opinion here, but I'm way more excited about the caching f= eatures they've added. 

////Greg Balint
///Art Direct= or / 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 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-0DBF03A1-8C39-46DF-928A-7FAF582D2630--