| ||||||||||
|
I apologize. Re-reading this after my first cup of tea (note to self: must not post when still drowsy), I see now that I misread your post. Yeah, doing everything in a raytracer has its benefits. Still, the way you chose to do it is and remains highly questionable. You should have optimized the hell out of it as a CPU renderer and then added GPU support as the icing on top of it - like anyone with some sense does. Mylenium [Pour Mylène, ange sur terre] 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> |
