Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4736266 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 07:36:56 +0200 Received: from oxbaltgw13.schlund.de (oxbaltgw13.schlund.de [172.19.246.19]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mddka-1SLa3F141M-00PN30; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 07:39:25 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:39:25 +0200 (CEST) From: "mylenium@mylenium.de" Reply-To: "mylenium@mylenium.de" To: After Effects Mail List Message-ID: <269718952.218339.1338961165272.JavaMail.open-xchange@email.1und1.de> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_218338_1263053821.1338961165224" X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v6.20.3-Rev2 X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:I0zfe0rxYRUyMOmpu/hXVV6L+jNePG3sdwewK9YvW07 TT9AHEib+480EsGq62FOcGVOmQdDiOEqipvcPbQw7VexdGyWqz NhsZFxqqX9o0irUEh90QP8AfuTA6waDAQA2PwsIn//T2jPn2V+ TUtuRjBmYtUq69CTbegzBmJ9sua0HNco/O18/ffzh8+kdYczBB zhgqNaNGDX1o8TFclq7+co+ZVH47utGVg1RNpSrgMSEOq8Z67g 0HS907ix5acJ+Ou44Zt3j7vMSCAkJL8yKuTz2NRe+vIPZOoBDF ywh8TaGDyLTmmcPLBIcDk72UwOLRbpuQhiCB9x88slFCamuiiI RLMBNhroyKjMKXy1aImzoxSZBrR7Rip1o8JuRejstg+EpziHX9 kn2C7nWdLFERYQVhWZWzCAoLf2h2bkXOSJlm5X10e9gCVOLsbn RxlzK ------=_Part_218338_1263053821.1338961165224 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That's 100% bullshit. Mylenium [Pour Myl=C3=A8ne, ange sur terre] ----------------------------------------- www.mylenium.de Todd Kopriva hat am 5. Juni 2012 um 23:20 geschrieben: > > I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray > > traced renderer they did in AE6. > > 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 > 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. > > 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. > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to ------=_Part_218338_1263053821.1338961165224 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That's 100% bullshit.

Mylenium

[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre]
-----------------------------------------
www.mylenium.de

Todd Kopriva <kopriva@adobe.com> hat am 5. Juni 2012 um 23:20 geschrieben:

> > I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray
> > traced renderer they did in AE6.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

------=_Part_218338_1263053821.1338961165224--