Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
References: <list-4736100@media-motion.tv>
From: Rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <list-4736100@media-motion.tv>
Message-Id: <877CA70D-A0F0-4E2C-AD7A-0EFF58C246A0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:04:41 -0400
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

Minus the unfortunate possibility of dropping a cuda card in to a newer MacB=
ook pro.=20

On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:

> lets put it another way, the cost of a CUDA compatible GPU is a couple hun=
dred bucks. thats way cheaper than replacing an entire system sporting xeon C=
PU's that could easily run $3k-5K. a CUDA GPU is literally 1/10th the price o=
f 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 decis=
ion, and they say that a ray-traced renderer is more efficient for getting g=
ood-looking results for reflections, refractions, and shadows than would be a=
 scanline renderer. Our GPU-based ray-traced 3D renderer is actually quite f=
ast compared with anything that gives comparable visual results for these li=
ght-related characteristics. That said, the CPU-based renderer is slow, and w=
e acknowledge that.=20
>>=20
>> As far hardware dependencies: We officially support a couple dozen GPUs, a=
nd 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>