Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
From: Brian Maffitt <brian@totaltraining.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4736100@media-motion.tv>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:01:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B43538C-AA95-4BD3-B164-37A5F6891038@totaltraining.com>
References: <list-4736100@media-motion.tv>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>

This all assumes one has an upgradeable machine. If you are using a =
non-supported laptop or an all-in-one machine (iMac) with an ATI or =
Intel card, your only recourse is a whole new machine... or work slowly.

> 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
>=20
> S
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote:
>=20
>>> 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>
>=20
>=20
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>