| Robert, we flew people in an airplane to talk with customers about this potential decision. If you want to equate that with survey monkey, or simply don't want to believe it, there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
The Quadro 4000 card was the most extensively tested card we used in the CS6 cycle. We have limited testing resources and we chose to focus on testing and certifying their professional level graphics cards. Those videos probably mention quadro because they're likely using a system the AE team recommended. We're not going to recommend configurations we haven't extensively tested. If we decided to invest more time in testing ray-traced 3D, we could have focused on benchmarking the quadro vs. the gtx, but we decided to focus on testing things like our new caching model and the 3D camera tracker instead. You mentioned CS6 was a good release so I figure we made the right trade-offs.
No one is preventing you from using a cheaper card and I'm thrilled there are lower cost alternatives that meet the needs of our users. We take pride in offering a tool used by artists that can compete with much more expensive solutions.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Roland Kahlenberg (RoRK) <aemaillist@broadcastgems.com> wrote:
Dan, you cannot be serious that a two-month 'survey' led you guys to make such huge decisions. Adobe has in-house video evangelists who are supposed to be out there; supporting the AE, educating and providing feedback (hi Todd ;-0).
Raise your hands folks to signal the last time you saw any really useful tutorial or write-up from one of Adobe's so-called video evangelists. Sorry but my toes are laughing too much to raise even a finger!
Then ... say what you want but I hear nothing but Quadro, Quadro, Quadro when I watch a video from Adobe. Seriously, when did Adobe become an Italian company! ;-)
The facts have been very consistent that the best performance GPUs for CS6 are the GTX cards. WOW! Are we to believe that it's taken such a long while for us folks to find this out? Surely you guys couldn't have been missing the hoop all this while? What's your take on the rendering results thus far Dan? We all love you guys at the AE Team but this is the first time that many of us have experienced such profound and concerted BS coming from Adobe. We'll all likely rationalize, somehow, and do a group hug. But it saddens me that pushing the Quadro's has been hyped up so much without real-world stats! Notice that Adobe has never once provided A/B comparisons between the Quadro's and the other supported nVidia cards and yet that's all they do.
Having said all these, I am actually extremely happy with CS6 and it's the best software upgrade I've ever made.
But the trust I've had with AE has diminished quite a bit due to the marketing BS. I've said it before and maybe it'll never amount to anything BUT I do want to say this again - the best thing that can happen to AE is for the development team to leave Adobe and for AE to be part of an independent development team. A place where the entire company is structured towards compositing (and all that it entails) and telling the truth and behaving like decent, hardworking, honest adults working together with professionals in a world made up of adults so that each individual maximizes their true potential - to make a positive difference.
Folks, Adobe is not AE and AE is not Adobe. AE is part of Adobe. Adobe is a marketing company. This marketing company leverages on technology. This is the gist of it.
- Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ramirez" < ramirezdan@gmail.com>
To: "After Effects Mail List" < AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 6:22:25 AM
Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
I'm not seeing how CS5 is relevant to the conversation.
The visit(s) I'm referring to were conducted Dec 2010 - Jan 2011.
|
