Erik Lindahl
Forum Replies Created
-
I’ve only briefly tested the 3D tracker in After Effects but I’ve been far more comfortable dealing with tracking data from Mocha. This could be a huge case of learning the new tools inside of After Effects for my part but yeah.
Back to the question – if Mocha AE doesn’t have a the 3D Plane Solve module found in Mocha Pro then that isn’t an option for you. I’ll try to do a quick test of the effect later today.
-
I’m not sure if Mocha AE in CS6 has the 3D camera solve option but it could sort something like that out I would imagine.
-
Agree with this.
But at the end of the day Apple should offer OPTIONS. They don’t need to offer the full range of nVidias say 10-15 current GPU’S. But they should have at least 1 current AMD and nVidia GPU, preferably 1 “general purpose” and 1 “performance” (the integrated Intel chips probably cover the general purpose these days).
This is I think thought to technical / complex for Apple. They want a clever, perversely fair “locked” system. This doesn’t have to be bad but since Apple more and more is losing diversify in its hardware – for the more “power user” – its becoming it more and more.
The odd thing is they tend to have heaps of CPU / Memory options so I don’t get why they can’t do the same for GPU.
-
On iPhone so quouting is a bit scetchy but here goes:
I could be OpenCL in generall has been “bad”. I heard from two-three CUDA-accelerated solutions at IBC 2010 wondering why they don’t support OpenCL and at the time (and still) OpenCL is way behind in performance especially on OSX. Apple COULD HAVE driven this but they haven’t really bothered (10.7.4 gives some hope).
Where CoreMedia or AVFoundation falls short is with a lot of given solutions that work with QuickTime (and have for years) but Apple hasn’t implemented in their new media platform. For exmple GlueTools I think will be completely broken in 10.8 since the hooks just aren’t there for that kind of a solution. It also seems the “smart rendering” that’s been in QuickTime since the 90’s is gone. Is there even a I/O function like QuickTime has?
It seems somewhat so so made quite work-in-progress.
We can only hope OpenCL takes ground. Seing CUDA has a huge backing by nVidia its likely their edge will remain. OpenCL is still sub-par in all “real” applications today. The aside the choice of GPU’s are weak as every single Mac has a laptop GPU in them which IMO is madness. It makes sense to offer those types of systems but a “normal” core i7 system for sure has its place.
I fully agree the ASUS board isnt a MacPro replacement. But it could be a solid complement. Its replace a lot of iMac where you want a speedy GPU and you want the choice of displays. And you don’t loose thunderbolt. This is very much of interest for image-professionals.
-
OpenGL, OpenCL (this did get a boost in 10.7.4 so maybe there is hope) – not sure the “state” of how CoreMedia is in OSX 10.8 but in 10.7 QuickTime and CoreMedia is half-developed it seems.
All these fundamental technologies accelerate more and more pro apps. And even if the GPU is the only thing lacking that’s huge. And, it’s not just lacking, it’s around 1/8th of the performance it *should* be. And the fact Apple doesn’t offer the choice of AMD or nVidia graphics render CUDA-apps useless as well.
I don’t see how and iMac or a Mac Mini is in any way better than for example the ASUS-board for general to high-end media creation and consumption.
-
The below is a quote from Netkas.org in regards to OpenGL-supprt in OSX 10.7.x as well as 10.8.
As for this update, no it doesn’t add any new apis though, nor did DP4 of 10.8, still same 3.2 support, which is ridiculous considering 3.2 is 2009-2010 tech and 4.2 is what we SHOULD be getting in 10.8. But that’s apple for you, 2-3 years behind on gaming at all times while innovating mobile market.
It’s actually quite ironic the OS is lagging pretty much as far behind as the hardware is.
-
Well the Mac-lineup is CPU-wise decent (disregarding the MacPro at the moment that is). But GPU and expansibility wise it’s somewhat of a mess. I mean “if only” the iMac had the current generation desktop CPU AND GPU it would be so much more of a robust system especially considering the giant screen that poor GPU has to power. If you also had the option of either a consumer AMD chip as well as a consumer nVidia Chip or even a professional nVidia Chip – we’d really be rocking.
Now we’re basically stranded with a huge laptop with the GPU-performance a mid-range desktop GPU had 2009 or 2010.
Yes, the iMac would still be stuck at 32GB RAM and possibly 4 cores (I thought there was a 6-core version of the IvyBridge CPU but I might be mistaking). Still it would up the performance of the machine in a lot of tasks probably 5 fold – even in Apples own apps (FCPX and Aperture)
https://www.barefeats.com/wst10g14.html
The above says it more than anything. Still that’s 6 months old.
Radeon 7970 = 100% (not available for the Mac yet)
Radeon 5870 = 28% (the best the MacPro can offer)
Radeon 6970M = 15% (the best the iMac can offer, or roughly 50% of what the 2-3 year old MacPro can offer).It’s quite ridiculous to be honest.
-
It still beats everything Apple has on the desktop except the MacPro in certain situations (given I think a system based on this would cost less than the iMac). People talk about Thunderbolt as a good expansion solution where there you’re stuck with even less i/o performance than the PCIe-slots from the above motherboard.
This wouldn’t be the MacPro replacement. It would be the Apple desktop compliment product they’ve been laking since… Well for ever I think. As a “high end desktop system” it would be perfect. The other option would be going with a simpler Xeon-system but these tend to run away in terms of price very fast (look at for example the HP Z1 vs iMac). But sure, if Apple could scale the MacPro from around $1000 and up that would be perfectly fine. There are other benefits of Core vs Xeon though – more frequent updates, often a lot of bang for the buck.
Currently they have their 2-3 year old machine lurking along. Or an 27″ MacBook Pro that requires a power cable. For some applications – it’s perfect. For a others it very much not so.
I’d imagine a mobile GPU will have a harder time saturating the buss seeing these are something in the lines of 2-3 years behind desktop GPUs in performance, not to mention being able to have multiple GPU’s which neither the iMac, MacMini or MacBook Pro handles (even via TB as they should but they don’t).
-
There hasn’t been anything officially said or done no, given this is the machine that’s always been lacking in Apples line-up.
-
My previous reply is being held for a possible “profanity word” (it’s not but I get why it got stopped). Never the less…
Yes – a desktop “MacPro Mini” based on a 6-core i7 IvyBridge would be a terrific middle-machine between the iMac and the MacPro we have today (given the MacPro is updated to 2012/2013’s standards). It would also be good if Apple took the ball and made things like Jeremy mentions easier for developers to utilize. Resolve works the way you state Jeremy though I thought Premier did not (CS5.x didn’t at least). After Effects CS6’s raytracing engine when used with CUDA will use all available CUDA-hardware in the system however.