I have no idea, and while slashdot certainly murdered this topic in the headline, doing production quality rendering using hardware acceleration is a huge HUGE BIG MASSIVE fucking deal and not many people seem to realize it yet.
Nobody is going to drop PRman for Cg anytime soon. Why? Because they have two different target markets and address two different need
People used PRman in the first place because of its speed and quality. Cg has one down pretty easily, the quality is something that isn't that much harder. Rendering in hardware DOES NOT have to be realtime in order to be beneficial.
Can these cards handle anti-aliasing like RM can? No.
Not in realtime, not yet, but it doesn't matter, since anti-aliasing is not only becoming a very high priority on 3d card makers' lists, but anti-aliasing can be done by simply rendering the samer frame multiple times and blending them together until the actual card has high quality AA enabled, which should be in the next generation.
Can these cards handle DOF like RM can? No. PRman does a depth based DOF which can be done in post with a z-buffer. If that isn't high quality enough the frame can also be renderered in sections, and/or multiple frames can be rendered with slight offsets etc etc. There are dozens of ways to make it work.
Can these cards to programmable shading like RM can? No.
Fuck yeah they can! That's the whole point. Where do think these shader languages came from? Large shaders can always be broken down and rendered in passes.
These cards are designed to do graphics real time with the best quality they can squeeze out while still hitting their timing targets. RM is meant to get the best possible quality - and who cares about time?
No there cards are designed to render images quickly with quality as a second priority to time. There is a difference. You are implying that they will reduce the quality to hit realtime framerates, which is not true. PRman (if that is what you are referring to by RM) was used and still is used because of its quality and speed, speed being a very high consideration, with quality taking precedent. Speed is everything. Speed breeds quality.
This is a silly pointless discussion. Yes, in 10 or 20 years maybe the hardware will be there, but it isn't now and you sound silly making speculations like these.
This is about as important as discussions on 3D come. This is as huge as anything that has happened to the 3D industry. This is revolution over evolution. This is the next big step that 3D will take after the invention of gourad shading, phong shading, Renderman, and hardware acceleleration. This will start to happen by the end of the year, not in 20 years. 3D is great now, but it is about to get really really good.
This is false. SGI was the high end and has been dying very slowly. For 3D NT and 2000 have really been the mainstay. Mac never had any good 3D programs except for Lightwave, and just recently Maya. Look at the backbones of high end 3D, Softimage|3D/Softimage|XSI, PowerAnimator/Maya and Houdini. First they were on SGI, then SGI and NT, and now they are all on Linux. Mac's aren't a player on the animation side of things, but Apple seems to be trying to change that quickly. What is one tool for Mac that isn't available on windows?
The tools they are using on Linux ARE THE SAME TOOLS they were using on windows. That is why they are switching, because they can port stuff over, and the upper end of 3D and animation (Softimage, Maya, Houdini, Shake, etc. etc.) are available on Linux.
I have seen so many bullshit comments like "hollywoord is using linux while they are trying to cripple/kill it!" and refuted them everytime because the connection of a VFX studio being 'Hollywood' is absurd. Now that the one company who does represent 'Hollywood' and is directly related with all the shitty shit concerning the purchasing of Senators and DMCA is using Linux I don't see any of those comments. Yah for Linux and all that (Linux is hitting big in 3D and doesn't really need Disney but it doesn't hurt) but I hate Disney more now. Flame away on this one, the hand (animation department) doesn't know what the ass (management) is doing.
Whomever wrote that article may understand 3D, but doesn't understand where shaders fit in and the history and experience already here. Pixel and Vertex shaders have been around since the inception of commercial 3D in the form of Renderman surface and displacement shaders. They are small and very modular programs which don't need access to a large amount of information at one time. Thus because of the implied modularity, and the isolation of the calculations relative to the rest of the scene there is no need for OO (I know you didn't mention it, but someone in the FIRST story about this did, and its a good question), and no real need for pointers.
Furthermore because of the very analog nature of what is being descibed, control statements and desicion shortcuts aren't a very big deal. Of course there are if else statements, but they are not used as much as simple and very general algorithms. Hard desicions lead to aliasing, because they rule out a gradual change. Also because of the analog nature of what is being reproduced integers are used very rarely, almost exclusivly for loop counters.
Using float indices for arrays is a kick ass design descision. It allows for smooth and elegant interpolation between discreet values, and I can't stress what a cool idea that is.
In short, the register is wrong, and this IS a formula for a widespread language, because it is copying another very mature widespread language, the Renderman shading language. The only thing I am worried about is that it will be geared towards only Nvidia products, thus competing with OpenGL 2.0 (whenever the vapor settles).
Keep in mind that I am not trying to argue you, but I am trying to argue the register's stance. The designers of Nvidia are very aware of the vast history of Renderman I am sure, and this language looks just fine.
For anyone who wants to get into writing shaders, the book 'Advanced Renderman: Creating CGI for motion pictures' by Anthony Apodaca and Larry Gritz is your bible. it covers everything you need to know and more, and I highly recommend it.
Right, yes, thanks for the tip, now I won't ever by a Macintosh computer, because that is what this whole idiot pissing match was about. Thanks for the wake up call. Meanwhile in reality, if I had $6000 and I could get a new computer, Maya Unlimited, and Shake, I would do it. That was the original point after all.
That's a very good question, and the answer is that even very complex shaders don't really get complex enough to require OO. They are all about algorithms and don't benefit a whole lot from design. They are very idependant modules by themselves, so the modularity is inherent.
Only an amatuer would focus so much on the hardware. PC's would be faster. It matters, but not that much. In the recent article about ILM , what were they upgrading from? SGI O2's to Quadro 2's and those were supposed to be 5 times faster. Can you imagine how much better their work will be now?
You are damn right it is smart. I do 3D. If they bought Maya and dropped the price for the Mac version (even more) and also I could get a cheap copy of Shake, what would I be using ? A mac baby all the way. Actually if I did more compositing and they dropped the price of just Shake or Rayz that would be incentive enough to buy a Mac.
Ignorance knows no bounds. 'Movie Companies?' The MPAA is pursuing laws that would make it difficult if not impossible for an operating system to be completely open source. The biggest thing to remember though, is that ILM is a visual effects and post production company, not a fucking giant movie studio, and not part of the MPAA or associated with it. They aren't even in Hollywood they are a 6 hour drive north. Get a clue and stop with this nonsense.
I am sick and tired of "Hollywood is a hypocrite for using Linux!" comments. The only remotly relevant comparison would be if Sony Pictures Imageworks started using a whole lot of Linux, which very well may happen, but until the article is on that, no more of this please. I know you are being sarcastic, but I know others really think this. Come to think of it, Sony is using Linux for the PS2 huh? This is AOL/TimeWarner suing themsevles over Gnutella all over again, but NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE!
Re:DRM helmets are outdated.
on
DRM Helmet
·
· Score: 2
I guess I'm old news, being just a regular dongle.
That was certainly not the Zenith of visual effects.
John Gaeta was the visual effects supervisor for the Matrix, if that is what you are talking about. So it was his crew, the artists and the developers. Dan Piponi is head of R&D. It is a simbiotic relationship, don't pretend that one doesn't need the other.
Manex won the Oscar for visual effects for the Matrix.
That wasn't the same year (Obviously) as Titanic. Titanic was before that, not in the inerim. In fact Manex won back to back Oscars for What Dreams May Come and The Matrix, so Titanic was actually in 1997.
Star Wars Episode I should have won for visual effects, but it didn't because the movie was shit.
And finally, it tells us nothing about the sad state of affais in movies today.
very true, half my crashes in IE 6 (I use mozilla now baby) were from quicktime, and that is saying something. Oh well, its about fuckin time jpeg2000 got through the door.
You tried to make a point, namely that everyone needs 3D
From my post: Most computer users don't need 3D
Your comback is to set up a straw man (everyone needs 3 monitors)
From my post again: most computer users don't need 3 fuckin' monitors eighther
I know its fun to jump in with others and bash someone, but I was actually trying to start an exchange of ideas not a fight with poeple who can't make their point without insult.
Macrovision works by fucking with autotracking. It sends signal spikes which throw the VCR off. A TV outputs the signal straight so while the quality is decreased, most people don't notice. I don't know if a video capture device would be affected by Macrovision, but I would guess no. There are Macrovision defeating devices which cost $50 at Circuit City though, so it is really just added cost and not a setback.
your all-hailed Longhorn (what a stupid name by the way).
Jesus its not like I created it, I am just stating what I have read. Matrox cards are there for the long hall anyway.
This begs the question, if 3D isn't important to the people who will buy this card, then why is there such powerful 3D in this card? I am not exactly sure why it is you take it so personally that Matrox is supposedly coming out with a card with powerful 3D.
I think you really need to have a good read about anti-aliasing, why it is not 'blurring', why it is not bullshit, its roots in signal theory and how they apply to sound, images, and anything else that can be represented by a signal.
I don't see what your past experiences has to do with my future predictions, but hey, this is Slashdot, so happy trolling. Longhorn will require 3D, and my guess is that many who needs 3 monitors will too.
Most computer users don't need 3D, most computer users don't need 3 fuckin' monitors eighther. Of the people who are using three monitors to do their work, I am betting a good lot of them are doing something with 3D some of the time.
A 10 bit DAC isn't that big of a deal. It is cool, but 3D labs' card will have one and I am sure ATI and Nvidia will step up to the plate too.
I think they must have realized that for a video card to be useful now, powerful 3D is the foundation. More and more applications are using 3D API's and with Longhorn, and of course 3D animation, modeling, design, and architecture programs not to mention GAMES a video card is just no good unless it has some serious 3D muscle. Bring programability in the 3D chips into play and the trend continues. Unless someone is doing straight photoshop or video editing, I don't know who would use a triple head card without 3D in it.
I think Matrox realizes this and can't imagine that they would continue to compete in video cards without some big ol' 3D firepower.
Re:Christina and the Strokes....
on
Mashed-Up Music
·
· Score: 2
I have actually mixed "Christina", "Strokes", and "Nirvana" into one, and it's not bad. I don't think anyone has succesfully mixed "Destiny's Child" and "Nirvana" though.
All it would take would be a recompile to get it working, and some optimizations to get it right. Renderers are the easiest useful applications to port, especially renderman renderers, because of the text and bytestream communications in the standard. Optimizing them for the processors is the only thing that would take time.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it a slow news day or what???
I have no idea, and while slashdot certainly murdered this topic in the headline, doing production quality rendering using hardware acceleration is a huge HUGE BIG MASSIVE fucking deal and not many people seem to realize it yet.
Nobody is going to drop PRman for Cg anytime soon. Why? Because they have two different target markets and address two different need
People used PRman in the first place because of its speed and quality. Cg has one down pretty easily, the quality is something that isn't that much harder. Rendering in hardware DOES NOT have to be realtime in order to be beneficial.
Can these cards handle anti-aliasing like RM can? No.
Not in realtime, not yet, but it doesn't matter, since anti-aliasing is not only becoming a very high priority on 3d card makers' lists, but anti-aliasing can be done by simply rendering the samer frame multiple times and blending them together until the actual card has high quality AA enabled, which should be in the next generation.
Can these cards handle DOF like RM can? No.
PRman does a depth based DOF which can be done in post with a z-buffer. If that isn't high quality enough the frame can also be renderered in sections, and/or multiple frames can be rendered with slight offsets etc etc. There are dozens of ways to make it work.
Can these cards to programmable shading like RM can? No.
Fuck yeah they can! That's the whole point. Where do think these shader languages came from? Large shaders can always be broken down and rendered in passes.
These cards are designed to do graphics real time with the best quality they can squeeze out while still hitting their timing targets. RM is meant to get the best possible quality - and who cares about time?
No there cards are designed to render images quickly with quality as a second priority to time. There is a difference. You are implying that they will reduce the quality to hit realtime framerates, which is not true. PRman (if that is what you are referring to by RM) was used and still is used because of its quality and speed, speed being a very high consideration, with quality taking precedent. Speed is everything. Speed breeds quality.
This is a silly pointless discussion. Yes, in 10 or 20 years maybe the hardware will be there, but it isn't now and you sound silly making speculations like these.
This is about as important as discussions on 3D come. This is as huge as anything that has happened to the 3D industry. This is revolution over evolution. This is the next big step that 3D will take after the invention of gourad shading, phong shading, Renderman, and hardware acceleleration. This will start to happen by the end of the year, not in 20 years. 3D is great now, but it is about to get really really good.
This is false. SGI was the high end and has been dying very slowly. For 3D NT and 2000 have really been the mainstay. Mac never had any good 3D programs except for Lightwave, and just recently Maya. Look at the backbones of high end 3D, Softimage|3D/Softimage|XSI, PowerAnimator/Maya and Houdini. First they were on SGI, then SGI and NT, and now they are all on Linux. Mac's aren't a player on the animation side of things, but Apple seems to be trying to change that quickly. What is one tool for Mac that isn't available on windows?
The tools they are using on Linux ARE THE SAME TOOLS they were using on windows. That is why they are switching, because they can port stuff over, and the upper end of 3D and animation (Softimage, Maya, Houdini, Shake, etc. etc.) are available on Linux.
I have seen so many bullshit comments like "hollywoord is using linux while they are trying to cripple/kill it!" and refuted them everytime because the connection of a VFX studio being 'Hollywood' is absurd. Now that the one company who does represent 'Hollywood' and is directly related with all the shitty shit concerning the purchasing of Senators and DMCA is using Linux I don't see any of those comments. Yah for Linux and all that (Linux is hitting big in 3D and doesn't really need Disney but it doesn't hurt) but I hate Disney more now. Flame away on this one, the hand (animation department) doesn't know what the ass (management) is doing.
Whomever wrote that article may understand 3D, but doesn't understand where shaders fit in and the history and experience already here. Pixel and Vertex shaders have been around since the inception of commercial 3D in the form of Renderman surface and displacement shaders. They are small and very modular programs which don't need access to a large amount of information at one time. Thus because of the implied modularity, and the isolation of the calculations relative to the rest of the scene there is no need for OO (I know you didn't mention it, but someone in the FIRST story about this did, and its a good question), and no real need for pointers.
Furthermore because of the very analog nature of what is being descibed, control statements and desicion shortcuts aren't a very big deal. Of course there are if else statements, but they are not used as much as simple and very general algorithms. Hard desicions lead to aliasing, because they rule out a gradual change. Also because of the analog nature of what is being reproduced integers are used very rarely, almost exclusivly for loop counters.
Using float indices for arrays is a kick ass design descision. It allows for smooth and elegant interpolation between discreet values, and I can't stress what a cool idea that is.
In short, the register is wrong, and this IS a formula for a widespread language, because it is copying another very mature widespread language, the Renderman shading language. The only thing I am worried about is that it will be geared towards only Nvidia products, thus competing with OpenGL 2.0 (whenever the vapor settles).
Keep in mind that I am not trying to argue you, but I am trying to argue the register's stance. The designers of Nvidia are very aware of the vast history of Renderman I am sure, and this language looks just fine.
For anyone who wants to get into writing shaders, the book 'Advanced Renderman: Creating CGI for motion pictures' by Anthony Apodaca and Larry Gritz is your bible. it covers everything you need to know and more, and I highly recommend it.
Right, yes, thanks for the tip, now I won't ever by a Macintosh computer, because that is what this whole idiot pissing match was about. Thanks for the wake up call. Meanwhile in reality, if I had $6000 and I could get a new computer, Maya Unlimited, and Shake, I would do it. That was the original point after all.
That's a very good question, and the answer is that even very complex shaders don't really get complex enough to require OO. They are all about algorithms and don't benefit a whole lot from design. They are very idependant modules by themselves, so the modularity is inherent.
Only an amatuer would focus so much on the hardware. PC's would be faster. It matters, but not that much. In the recent article about ILM , what were they upgrading from? SGI O2's to Quadro 2's and those were supposed to be 5 times faster. Can you imagine how much better their work will be now?
You are damn right it is smart. I do 3D. If they bought Maya and dropped the price for the Mac version (even more) and also I could get a cheap copy of Shake, what would I be using ? A mac baby all the way. Actually if I did more compositing and they dropped the price of just Shake or Rayz that would be incentive enough to buy a Mac.
Ignorance knows no bounds. 'Movie Companies?' The MPAA is pursuing laws that would make it difficult if not impossible for an operating system to be completely open source. The biggest thing to remember though, is that ILM is a visual effects and post production company, not a fucking giant movie studio, and not part of the MPAA or associated with it. They aren't even in Hollywood they are a 6 hour drive north. Get a clue and stop with this nonsense.
I am sick and tired of "Hollywood is a hypocrite for using Linux!" comments. The only remotly relevant comparison would be if Sony Pictures Imageworks started using a whole lot of Linux, which very well may happen, but until the article is on that, no more of this please. I know you are being sarcastic, but I know others really think this. Come to think of it, Sony is using Linux for the PS2 huh? This is AOL/TimeWarner suing themsevles over Gnutella all over again, but NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE!
I guess I'm old news, being just a regular dongle.
I think The Money Store beat you to it, I know I won't buy money from anywhere else.
I resent that, I am one of a kind and cannot be emulated.
That was certainly not the Zenith of visual effects.
John Gaeta was the visual effects supervisor for the Matrix, if that is what you are talking about. So it was his crew, the artists and the developers. Dan Piponi is head of R&D. It is a simbiotic relationship, don't pretend that one doesn't need the other.
Manex won the Oscar for visual effects for the Matrix.
That wasn't the same year (Obviously) as Titanic. Titanic was before that, not in the inerim. In fact Manex won back to back Oscars for What Dreams May Come and The Matrix, so Titanic was actually in 1997.
Star Wars Episode I should have won for visual effects, but it didn't because the movie was shit.
And finally, it tells us nothing about the sad state of affais in movies today.
very true, half my crashes in IE 6 (I use mozilla now baby) were from quicktime, and that is saying something. Oh well, its about fuckin time jpeg2000 got through the door.
As another said, stay away from the Orielly book Learning Cocoa, it is an abomination and practically useless.
Maybe you should read a little closer.
You tried to make a point, namely that everyone needs 3D
From my post: Most computer users don't need 3D
Your comback is to set up a straw man (everyone needs 3 monitors)
From my post again: most computer users don't need 3 fuckin' monitors eighther
I know its fun to jump in with others and bash someone, but I was actually trying to start an exchange of ideas not a fight with poeple who can't make their point without insult.
Macrovision works by fucking with autotracking. It sends signal spikes which throw the VCR off. A TV outputs the signal straight so while the quality is decreased, most people don't notice. I don't know if a video capture device would be affected by Macrovision, but I would guess no. There are Macrovision defeating devices which cost $50 at Circuit City though, so it is really just added cost and not a setback.
your all-hailed Longhorn (what a stupid name by the way).
Jesus its not like I created it, I am just stating what I have read. Matrox cards are there for the long hall anyway.
This begs the question, if 3D isn't important to the people who will buy this card, then why is there such powerful 3D in this card?
I am not exactly sure why it is you take it so personally that Matrox is supposedly coming out with a card with powerful 3D.
I think you really need to have a good read about anti-aliasing, why it is not 'blurring', why it is not bullshit, its roots in signal theory and how they apply to sound, images, and anything else that can be represented by a signal.
I don't see what your past experiences has to do with my future predictions, but hey, this is Slashdot, so happy trolling. Longhorn will require 3D, and my guess is that many who needs 3 monitors will too.
Most computer users don't need 3D, most computer users don't need 3 fuckin' monitors eighther. Of the people who are using three monitors to do their work, I am betting a good lot of them are doing something with 3D some of the time.
A 10 bit DAC isn't that big of a deal. It is cool, but 3D labs' card will have one and I am sure ATI and Nvidia will step up to the plate too.
I think they must have realized that for a video card to be useful now, powerful 3D is the foundation. More and more applications are using 3D API's and with Longhorn, and of course 3D animation, modeling, design, and architecture programs not to mention GAMES a video card is just no good unless it has some serious 3D muscle. Bring programability in the 3D chips into play and the trend continues. Unless someone is doing straight photoshop or video editing, I don't know who would use a triple head card without 3D in it.
I think Matrox realizes this and can't imagine that they would continue to compete in video cards without some big ol' 3D firepower.
I have actually mixed "Christina", "Strokes", and "Nirvana" into one, and it's not bad. I don't think anyone has succesfully mixed "Destiny's Child" and "Nirvana" though.
All it would take would be a recompile to get it working, and some optimizations to get it right. Renderers are the easiest useful applications to port, especially renderman renderers, because of the text and bytestream communications in the standard. Optimizing them for the processors is the only thing that would take time.