🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<kob3nospamplease-C52D4A.19040001072002@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
 Kenton <kob3nospamplease@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <znu-F2FCD4.04175901072002@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > Cards don't accelerate rendering, just playback.
> 
> So they accelerate 3D rendering but not Quicktime rendering ? that seems 
> pretty lame. So I assume the rendering is done by the CPU ?

3D cards accelerate real-time 3D. This is useful for games, and for the 
process of modeling in 3D programs. But it doesn't help with final 
renders of the sort generated by apps like LightWave or Maya -- for that 
you just need lots of CPU power.

Basically, any time you see high-quality 3D on TV or wherever, that's 
something that was rendered by a CPU, not something generated by a 3D 
card. The specialized 3D hardware on graphics cards is still too 
limiting to be used for photo-realistic rendering of arbitrary 3D 
scenes. Game developers have to be careful about keeping polygon counts 
low and texture sizes relatively small, and certain effects, such as 
refraction through glass or reflections off of complex surfaces, simply 
can't be done at all.

> I had a Voodoo 3000 and a Rage Pro, and the Rage pro was better at 
> rendering in Adobe after effects, although that's not just quicktime 
> it's rendering there.

It shouldn't make a great deal of difference. Really.

Quartz Extreme (due in the next release of OS X) will allow compositing 
within QuickTime movies to be accelerated by 3D hardware, but it's 
unclear if this will be used to generate final output, or just for 
real-time previews.

-- 
"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins
here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that 
alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." 
                                                     - George W. Bush