Return-Path: Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.212.54] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4738804 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:52:59 +0200 Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so750342vbm.27 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:55:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=PVqJywMB4Z11Mxrr+TX+UrtLK8x0F1FwXAEccE++eEc=; b=ZiUjP9wx5Xu0m1ui9cfsd0Cyqnip8W7pSG7RiRvr+7h6a+uIXZgzpmHKSgZk5gz5p4 f2WE+QSMsxS98U7uU5XTWL6kP9dsYd7VbOlKoP+blJF9nvSWBueAxslJ3q64qAbpje/y 5JUzcnXQDghvCg7TEhH/L2b4u+9PdUNpUA6a1gCX4OcRxUzQdJSCgicHPXlYHsn3snj8 2qfU/DIJjvzqUuAjiig5AP8T8FscrrMqc3E3Q4qZnR0NUiM6KZrNT0jgf7wZgLZFJ67Z 9Gm6G3qq6T+X0rvs4rQtEeYnHEtckKoj608/NEtJk+AlQz6HNSgXaKLzAeMhOLWRLxbH 4U4g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.226.68 with SMTP id iv4mr2791841vcb.21.1339088128866; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.28.106 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:55:28 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: Daniel Ramirez To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cdc8cb3e7c0404c1e4c0ac --14dae9cdc8cb3e7c0404c1e4c0ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Oops. Yes, I was addressing you Roland. Fair enough on the Quadro vs. GTX issue. My perspective is entirely from the engineering team and Todd's very plugged into both the engineering team and the rest of the company, so I'll take him at his word. On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roland Kahlenberg (RoRK) < aemaillist@broadcastgems.com> wrote: > Hi Dan, I believe you meant to address me instead of Robert. > > Firstly, I never questioned the quality nor the integrity of the results > you obtained from the two-month long survey. My point was that it was a > rather short period of time + there are Adobe employees, evangelists and > sales folks who I assume are out there with customers throughout the year > and these two groups of people should be soliciting info on a constant > basis. > > As for the testing, again, this is where the video evangelists and related > sales folks could have helped out. > > BTW, I got myself a GTX680, a week after it was released. I'm pleased with > it and especially how quackly the AE Team got it approved for CS6. I am > however concerned for others who may have purchased a Quadro, thinking that > it's the best card for CS6 because that's what Adobe has been saying, > consistently, in their CS6-related videos. I don't see this as being fair > to AE users nor to the AE Team. The Quadro's are not the best card for CS6 > but that has been the consistent message thus far. They may have been the > most tested but to say anything more is not correct. > > Todd has more or less agreed with my sentiments. Hopefully, users will get > a more balanced, constructive view directly from Adobe in future videos. > > Cheers > - Roland > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Ramirez" > To: "After Effects Mail List" > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:52:34 PM > Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? > > 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: > > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > --14dae9cdc8cb3e7c0404c1e4c0ac Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oops. Yes, I was addressing you Roland.=A0

Fair enough o= n the Quadro vs. GTX issue. My perspective is entirely from the engineering= team and Todd's very plugged into both the engineering team and the re= st of the company, so I'll take him at his word.


On Thu, Jun 7= , 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roland Kahlenberg (RoRK) <aemaillist@broad= castgems.com> wrote:
Hi Dan, I believe you meant to address me in= stead of Robert.

Firstly, I never questioned the quality nor the integrity of the results yo= u obtained from the two-month long survey. My point was that it was a rathe= r short period of time + there are Adobe employees, evangelists and sales f= olks who I assume are out there with customers throughout the year and thes= e two groups of people should be soliciting info on a constant basis.

As for the testing, again, this is where the video evangelists and related = sales folks could have helped out.

BTW, I got myself a GTX680, a week after it was released. I'm pleased w= ith it and especially how quackly the AE Team got it approved for CS6. I am= however concerned for others who may have purchased a Quadro, thinking tha= t it's the best card for CS6 because that's what Adobe has been say= ing, consistently, in their CS6-related videos. I don't see this as bei= ng fair to AE users nor to the AE Team. The Quadro's are not the best c= ard for CS6 but that has been the consistent message thus far. They may hav= e been the most tested but to say anything more is not correct.

Todd has more or less agreed with my sentiments. Hopefully, users will get = a more balanced, constructive view directly from Adobe in future videos.
Cheers
- Roland


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ramirez" <ramirezdan@gmail.com>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:52:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?

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 th= e
AE team recommended. We're not going to recommend configurations we
haven't extensively tested. If we decided to invest more time in testin= g
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.co= m > wrote:



+---End of message---+<= br> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

--14dae9cdc8cb3e7c0404c1e4c0ac--