Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4736817 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:43:00 +0200 Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so5105820ggm.28 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:45:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Opb4R61ccGRL3HUaEpF+uR0NMW9PCjy8VJmNCxZVdWM=; b=JRMk0fPz7ja2SijOiXKWtzAulmwIDuYhiNRcnB/GB9w5Osln0kvHQxAMInbCtnGElc WwdHkR9nfhbaHPlaUOUk2schN42AzlSgnEziSz9ZxeopbOFryad6F9EHLVIccklIGm1P AZT7RUYj7R8KtnnJwT5Zs09Ti96YXN8AO8RKKm62YDRpN45F5MhTLj30mM7OHphOX1v+ j2p5K36232dPHly97UYWpg03VLuamU04kd3j8b+rpM9mLR2BrD8XnstgDlVqBDVOISqz oPhWi7wZ/Xxs57JTBSxTY+D37kWsYPO4+KcAugeujkWYz80BL5lVuh4ClTQurzOBVU6b wbog== Received: by 10.60.23.193 with SMTP id o1mr20998828oef.7.1339001127623; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:45:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.80.167 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:44:47 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? To: After Effects Mail List , "mylenium@mylenium.de" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f2d490daac04c1d07e5b --e89a8fb1f2d490daac04c1d07e5b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I don't disagree, folding in a completely new raytracing engine to the existing code base would probably mean fundamental changes to the core software. Also despite its bugs AE is relatively stable - I'm sure that to keep this modicum of stability, and avoid huge licensing fees they decided to keep this project in house. I think you have to look at it as baby steps to try to compete with something like Nuke or even Smoke, and take a bite of Autodesk's market share. While this implementation may not be perfect I think it's an interesting approach to offloading the graphics engine to the GPU. My personal complaint is that when you switch over to raytracing, the CPU becomes underutilized; any render that maxes out the GPU seems to barely touch the CPU. That being said, I agree with mylenium that there were other more pressing issues I'd love to see approached, namely the limited viewports and frustrating 3D toolset. Why make the 3D rendering engine better at all when the basic manipulation and navigation tools are still pretty much crap compared to a "true" 3D software? They obviously had a reason, but it's curious. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM, mylenium@mylenium.de wrote: > ** > > I don't think that it's a matter of who is paying money to who. Nvidia > isn't any bigger than Adobe and has been in all kinds of trouble for the > last 2 years with their products not living up to their promises. It's on= ly > now that they're recovering. That aside, Adobe has long had the opportuni= ty > and money to license any of the available third-party renderers out there > and that would sufficiently have taken care of the actual final rendering > part, no matter whether it would have been a pure CPU renderer like > MentalRay, vRay, or any of the PRMan compliant renderers out there, one o= f > the CPU/ GPU hybrid versions of those renderers (iRay, VRay RT), a genuin= e > GPU renderer like Octane or a GPU/ CPU/ GPGPU tool like Arion. Not to spe= ak > of others or emerging tech like the late Clarisse iFX. Had they chosen th= at > path, they could have focused on the things that really matter - providin= g > a better 3D user experience by giving us proper 3D viewports, a better > graph editor, a realworld unit system, handling of 3D files and ultimatel= y > even an OpenGL that is on par with 3D programs or games even. But what do= I > know - I've been preaching this for the last 5 years, but nobody ever > listens, so by the time CS8 comes around, we'll probably still be happily > buying plug-ins, use 3D programs or move on to competitors because in all > that bling-bling After Effects has lost what once made it so great - bein= g > the bestest motion graphics program on the planet for those whou could no= t > afford anything else. > > > > Mylenium > > > > [Pour Myl=E8ne, ange sur terre] > ----------------------------------------- > www.mylenium.de > > > Greg Balint hat am 6. Juni 2012 um 17:47 geschrieben: > > > Honestly, it strikes me more as a decision made by money, and nVidia, > than engineers alone. I know the teams at Adobe do their best to push the > limits of the software and make awesome new innovative features, but I > can't be blind to the fact that if Intel came up to the bigwigs at Adobe > and paid them a huge fortune, they could probably demand that some softwa= re > only runs on Sandy Bridge or some other processor or above, and Adobe, > being a for-profit company, would see value in that for their company, an= d > hope that most people would just accept the requirements and upgrade. > > > > I can get plenty of great reflections and shadows and refractions, etc, > with most software renderers out there. Raytracing is great for more > photorealistic renders, however I don't find that it's at all necessary f= or > simple extruded shapes. Heck. I've not used a raytracing renderer for any > professional 3d work that I've ever done in the 12 years i've been doing > this, only because I don't have one to work with, and the results of the > software render in my programs have been plenty fine to work with for my > cases. > > > > All that being said, I don't think there's any productive route to > complain about this sort of exclusivity. And who knows? Maybe in the futu= re > we'll have a decent software renderer that uses CPUs properly, as most > other true > > 3d programs do. We have to consider the fact that this is a first > iteration feature, and also that it still needs to tie into the rest of t= he > render engine properly. Perhaps a software renderer that handles 3d as we= ll > as the 2d layer structure of AE is much more complicated than just a true > 3d only renderer. > > > > > > ////Greg Balint > > ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > > delRAZOR.com/ > > > > On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Dave Bittner > wrote: > > > > > At NAB this year someone quipped that the person who's going to > benefit most from the new AE 3D renderer is Zax Dow, who's going to be > selling a lot of copies of Pro Animator. > > > > > > I'm left scratching my head that something as basic as text extrusion= , > which we've been wanting for years, is tied to this cumbersome 3D rendere= r. > It strikes me as being a decision made by engineers, not artists. > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:01PM, Brian Maffitt wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > +---End of message---+ > > > To unsubscribe send any message to > > > > > > > +---End of message---+ > > To unsubscribe send any message to > --=20 Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --e89a8fb1f2d490daac04c1d07e5b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I don't disagree, folding in a completely new raytracing engine t= o the existing code base would probably mean fundamental changes to the cor= e software. Also despite its bugs AE is relatively stable - I'm sure th= at to keep this modicum of stability, and avoid huge licensing fees they de= cided to keep this project in house. I think you have to look at it as baby= steps to try to compete with something like Nuke or even Smoke, and take a= bite of Autodesk's market share. While this implementation may not be = perfect I think it's an interesting approach to offloading the graphics= engine to the GPU. My personal complaint is that when you switch over to r= aytracing, the CPU becomes underutilized; any render that maxes out the GPU= seems to barely touch the CPU.

That being said, I agree with mylenium that there were other more press= ing issues I'd love to see approached, namely the limited viewports and= frustrating 3D toolset. Why make the 3D rendering engine better at all whe= n the basic manipulation and navigation tools are still pretty much crap co= mpared to a "true" 3D software? They obviously had a reason, but = it's curious.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM, mylenium@mylenium.de <= ;mylenium@myleniu= m.de> wrote:
=20
=20 =20

I don't think that it's a matter of w= ho is paying money to who. Nvidia isn't any bigger than Adobe and has b= een in all kinds of trouble for the last 2 years with their products not li= ving up to their promises. It's only now that they're recovering. T= hat aside, Adobe has long had the opportunity and money to license any of t= he available third-party renderers out there and that would sufficiently ha= ve taken care of the actual final rendering part, no matter whether it woul= d have been a pure CPU renderer like MentalRay, vRay, or any of the PRMan c= ompliant renderers out there, one of the CPU/ GPU hybrid versions of those = renderers (iRay, VRay RT), a genuine GPU renderer like Octane or a GPU/ CPU= / GPGPU tool like Arion. Not to speak of others or emerging tech like the l= ate Clarisse iFX. Had they chosen that path, they could have focused on the= things that really matter - providing a better 3D user experience by givin= g us proper 3D viewports, a better graph editor, a realworld unit system, h= andling of 3D files and ultimately even an OpenGL that is on par with 3D pr= ograms or games even. But what do I know - I've been preaching this for= the last 5 years, but nobody ever listens, so by the time CS8 comes around= , we'll probably still be happily buying plug-ins, use 3D programs or m= ove on to competitors because in all that bling-bling After Effects has los= t what once made it so great - being the bestest motion graphics program on= the planet for those whou could not afford anything else.

=20

=A0

=20

Mylenium

=20

=A0

=20

[Pour Myl=E8ne, ange sur terre]
------------------------------------= -----
www.mylenium.= de

=20

=20

Greg Balint <greg@delrazor.com> hat am 6. Juni 2012 um 17:47 geschrieben:

> Honestly, it strikes me more as a decision made by money, and n= Vidia, than engineers alone. I know the teams at Adobe do their best to pus= h the limits of the software and make awesome new innovative features, but = I can't be blind to the fact that if Intel came up to the bigwigs at Ad= obe and paid them a huge fortune, they could probably demand that some soft= ware only runs on Sandy Bridge or some other processor or above, and Adobe,= being a for-profit company, would see value in that for their company, and= hope that most people would just accept the requirements and upgrade.=20
>=20
> I can get plenty of great reflections and shadows and refractio= ns, etc, with most software renderers out there. Raytracing is great for mo= re photorealistic renders, however I don't find that it's at all ne= cessary for simple extruded shapes. Heck. I've not used a raytracing re= nderer for any professional 3d work that I've ever done in the 12 years= i've been doing this, only because I don't have one to work with, = and the results of the software render in my programs have been plenty fine= to work with for my cases.=20
>=20
> All that being said, I don't think there's any producti= ve route to complain about this sort of exclusivity. And who knows? Maybe i= n the future we'll have a decent software renderer that uses CPUs prope= rly, as most other true
> 3d programs do.=A0 We have to consider the fact that this is a = first iteration feature, and also that it still needs to tie into the rest = of the render engine properly. Perhaps a software renderer that handles 3d = as well as the 2d layer structure of AE is much more complicated than just = a true 3d only renderer.=20
>=20
>=20
> ////Greg Balint
> ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
> delRAZOR.com/
>=20
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Dave Bittner <dave@pixelworkshop.com> w= rote:
>=20
> > At NAB this year someone quipped that the person who's= going to benefit most from the new AE 3D renderer is Zax Dow, who's go= ing to be selling a lot of copies of Pro Animator.=20
> >=20
> > I'm left scratching my head that something as basic as= text extrusion, which we've been wanting for years, is tied to this cu= mbersome 3D renderer. It strikes me as being a decision made by engineers, = not artists.=20
> >=20
> > On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:01PM, Brian Maffitt wrote:
> >=20
> >> This all assumes one has an upgradeable machine. If yo= u 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 slo= wly.
> >=20
> >=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>= ;
=20 =20



--
Animator & Editor
= www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn

--e89a8fb1f2d490daac04c1d07e5b--