Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
From: Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4735901@media-motion.tv>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:47:22 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67032E13-968D-4C76-8BD2-DA0AF1950A1B@practicali.com>
References: <list-4735901@media-motion.tv>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>

lets put it another way, the cost of a CUDA compatible GPU is a couple =
hundred bucks. thats way cheaper than replacing an entire system =
sporting xeon CPU's that could easily run $3k-5K. a CUDA GPU is =
literally 1/10th the price of a CPU upgrade.. assuming you even need to =
do one.=20

S


On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote:

>> I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray
>> traced renderer they did in AE6.=20
>=20
> I just asked a couple of the software engineers involved about this =
decision, and they say that a ray-traced renderer is more efficient for =
getting good-looking results for reflections, refractions, and shadows =
than would be a scanline renderer. Our GPU-based ray-traced 3D renderer =
is actually quite fast compared with anything that gives comparable =
visual results for these light-related characteristics. That said, the =
CPU-based renderer is slow, and we acknowledge that.=20
>=20
> As far hardware dependencies: We officially support a couple dozen =
GPUs, and many of the high-performing ones (like the GTX 580) are not =
expensive.
>=20
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>