which system used for graphics?
Jason Kratz
switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
Jason
Ron Jarrell
: Are the guys who are doing B5 still using a Video Toaster or are they
: switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
They're still using the toaster. Mind you, they're hooked to heavily
customized amigas with some array processing capabilities..
The SGI's, while fast and neat, dont have nearly the level of software
they need; they'd need to essentially rewrite the toaster software, and
then still buy hardware to output to NTSC cleanly.
--
Ron Jarrell
Virginia Tech Computing Center
jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
Jason Kratz
says:
>
>Jason Kratz (U28...@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
>: Are the guys who are doing B5 still using a Video Toaster or are they
>: switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
>
>They're still using the toaster. Mind you, they're hooked to heavily
>customized amigas with some array processing capabilities..
>
>The SGI's, while fast and neat, dont have nearly the level of software
>they need; they'd need to essentially rewrite the toaster software, and
>then still buy hardware to output to NTSC cleanly.
>
exists for the SGI machines (TDI Explore, Wavefront, etc) wouldn't be able
to handle the special effects in B5. Maybe I misunderstood what you said.
Whatever the case is if SGI machines are good enough to do the effects for
Jurrasic Park then they would be good enough to do the effects for B5. Mind
you that I am not bashing the Amiga or the Toaster and Lightwave as I own an
Amiga and have used Lightwave but I have also used Wavefront and it's much
slicker than Lightwave (it better be considering it costs so much more).
Also, SGI machines cost quite a bit more so that may be a factor. This isn't
meant as a flame and I appreciate your answer but I just can't believe the
claim that SGI software isn't up to the task.
is a kludge
>In article <20kuo2$o...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell)
>says:
>>
>>Jason Kratz (U28...@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
>>: Are the guys who are doing B5 still using a Video Toaster or are they
>>: switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
>>
>>They're still using the toaster. Mind you, they're hooked to heavily
>>customized amigas with some array processing capabilities..
>>
>>The SGI's, while fast and neat, dont have nearly the level of software
>>they need; they'd need to essentially rewrite the toaster software, and
>>then still buy hardware to output to NTSC cleanly.
Um... that sentence didn't quite parse. Rewrite the toaster SW to use
SGI's???
>>
>Wait a minute here. I can't believe for a minute that the software that
>exists for the SGI machines (TDI Explore, Wavefront, etc) wouldn't be able
>to handle the special effects in B5. Maybe I misunderstood what you said.
>Whatever the case is if SGI machines are good enough to do the effects for
>Jurrasic Park then they would be good enough to do the effects for B5. Mind
>you that I am not bashing the Amiga or the Toaster and Lightwave as I own an
>Amiga and have used Lightwave but I have also used Wavefront and it's much
>slicker than Lightwave (it better be considering it costs so much more).
>Also, SGI machines cost quite a bit more so that may be a factor. This isn't
>meant as a flame and I appreciate your answer but I just can't believe the
>claim that SGI software isn't up to the task.
Cost is definately a factor - the B5 CGI crew consists of several people,
and they like to have one machine apiece all to themselves etc. 1 or 2 good
SGI machines cost pretty close to what their roomfull of A2000/040+toasters
and various design machines cost. To really get it to work they'd probably
have to buy 1 SGI/animator, which would cost way too much. Also, with their
current setup they can get software updates essentially on demand from Newtek
free - they would be very unlikely to get a similar arrangement with Silicon
Graphics, and would have to write new software themselves (yeah right) or just
make do with stuff other people write. Another problem is the models - I
don't know of any software to port objects from LW3d to a form an SGI machine
can understand. Considering the immense size of the objects they already
have (It is rumored that the B5 station itself will not render w/o 32MB ram -
and that was before the detail was increased "1000%") and all the other work
they've already done, switching platforms now would be an increadible hassle.
Steven Lam
>switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
SGI's HA! TOASTER is superior! ;)
Why would they switch to a SGI when the Toaster systems are at a fraction
of the cost, do as much or more as the same number of SGIs? (Amiga #1)
From reading what they did to get the first B5 pilot/movie (special network,
NewTek programmers bending over backwards to modify Toaster software). I
highly doubt they'll completely trash their present system.
--
"I'm not tense, Steven Lam
just terribly STTNG/DS9/B5 #1 and nothing else!
alert!" SL...@ELECTRICAL.uwaterloo.ca
:O :) B) P) |) +) =) -=) *) :-) :p %) :\ :/ #:) (:) :^) %^} :} ;) B:) *:) +:)
Jonathan Roy
the SGI can't handle that level of effects. Of course SGI's
can do the effects. ILM has been using them for a long time. However,
getting an SGI to output high-quality NTSC effects is extremely
expensive. Since using the Toaster gives them plenty of power
to do excellent effects, and can easily handle NTSC output, that's
obviously the way to go. If they had a far larger budget? They'd
probably buy even more Toaster to increase there rendering speed
(Each one renders seperate frames in parallel), instead
of using a less NTSC friendly platform.
If they were making movie, they'd obviously go with SGI. :)
Watch for JMS's comment in the next batch of uploaded messages.
Basicly, JMS said that Ron will have to match or surpass
JP quality when they do their CGI characters in season 2 or 3.
(CAn't remember which season he said it'd be...)
:)
--
F F Jonathan Roy, of the Free Access Foundation Email: ni...@faf.org
A Mail f...@halcyon.com for information, or FTP to halcyon.com: /pub/faf/
F F Vorlons, of the Galactic Bloodshed Development Team GEnie: J.ROY18
"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design." - _RotJ_
Jason Kratz
(is a kludge) says:
>make do with stuff other people write. Another problem is the models - I
>don't know of any software to port objects from LW3d to a form an SGI machine
>can understand. Considering the immense size of the objects they already
Actually I believe there is a program that does this. It's called Vertex (I
believe). One of the formats (3D object) that it supports is Wavefront. It
also supports Lightwave.
>have (It is rumored that the B5 station itself will not render w/o 32MB ram -
>and that was before the detail was increased "1000%") and all the other work
>they've already done, switching platforms now would be an increadible hassle.
>
>>>--
>>>Ron Jarrell
>>>Virginia Tech Computing Center
>>>jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
>
Even thought I deleted most of the follow-up thanks for the reply. Your
comments all made sense. Once again I was not intending to flame the
original reply to my message I just think that it might not have been
phrased as well as it could have been. Thanks again!
BUCKLEY CHARLES RAY
>>Are the guys who are doing B5 still using a Video Toaster or are they
>>switching to a workstation (SGI maybe?)? Just curious.
>
>SGI's HA! TOASTER is superior! ;)
>
>Why would they switch to a SGI when the Toaster systems are at a fraction
>of the cost, do as much or more as the same number of SGIs? (Amiga #1)
>
>From reading what they did to get the first B5 pilot/movie (special network,
>NewTek programmers bending over backwards to modify Toaster software). I
>highly doubt they'll completely trash their present system.
>--
rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time becomes
a major factor.
--
Charles Buckley buc...@ucsu.colorado.edu
It's turtles all the way down.
Just another West Virginia exile in the land of make believe.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Richard Blewitt
>>
>>From reading what they did to get the first B5 pilot/movie (special network,
>>NewTek programmers bending over backwards to modify Toaster software). I
>>highly doubt they'll completely trash their present system.
>>--
>How fast can this system make its renderings? I have no experience with
>rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time becomes
>a major factor.
I think they have stated that they can produce 5-7 minutes of new
animations per week. For an hour show, which can use a lot of stock
footage, this is a lot of new stuff, more than they need in most
cases, so they can use the extra rendering time for some really
special episodes. I doubt they could get that much from a SGI setup
and still maintain profitability. The bottom line is the bottom
line.
Rick
--
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________.sig____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rble...@ucsd.edu
Jason Kratz
Blewitt) says:
>
>In article <1993Jun29....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> .
>buc...@rintintin.Colorado
>>>
>>>From reading what they did to get the first B5 pilot/movie (special network,
>>>NewTek programmers bending over backwards to modify Toaster software). I
>>>highly doubt they'll completely trash their present system.
>>>--
>>How fast can this system make its renderings? I have no experience with
>>rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time becomes
>>a major factor.
>
>I think they have stated that they can produce 5-7 minutes of new
>animations per week. For an hour show, which can use a lot of stock
>footage, this is a lot of new stuff, more than they need in most
>cases, so they can use the extra rendering time for some really
>special episodes. I doubt they could get that much from a SGI setup
>and still maintain profitability. The bottom line is the bottom
>line.
>
Wait a minute. Which SGI setup are we talking about? I have a friend who is
a TA for a computer animation class and they use SGI (better than Indigo but
not the best). I saw him doing a preview of his animation RENDERED and PLAYED
in real-time. No, it wasn't as fast as it could be but considering it was
doing everything in real-time it wasn't too bad. Has anyone here used both an
Amiga setup and an SGI setup? By the way, an Indigo is faster than an Amiga
even with an '040 (I'm talking 4000 which is full 32-bit not an accelerated
2000 like I understand they use on B5 (which is a 32-bit processor but 16-bit
bus). The software available for an SGI is better than Lightwave (and more
than likely faster at rendering). How could an Amiga be faster? Oops, while
rambling I just noticed the last part of the sentence "...still maintain
profitibility". Sorry, Amiga would be cheaper but not nearly as good as an
SGI.
>Rick
>
>
>--
>_____________________________________________________________________
>_____________________________.sig____________________________________
>_____________________________________________________________________
>The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rble...@ucsd.edu
Jason
is a kludge
>In article <1993Jun29....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buc...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY CHARLES RAY) writes:
>>>
>>>From reading what they did to get the first B5 pilot/movie (special network,
>>>NewTek programmers bending over backwards to modify Toaster software). I
>>>highly doubt they'll completely trash their present system.
>>>--
>>How fast can this system make its renderings? I have no experience with
>>rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time becomes
>>a major factor.
>I think they have stated that they can produce 5-7 minutes of new
>animations per week. For an hour show, which can use a lot of stock
>footage, this is a lot of new stuff, more than they need in most
>cases, so they can use the extra rendering time for some really
>special episodes. I doubt they could get that much from a SGI setup
>and still maintain profitability. The bottom line is the bottom
>line.
>Rick
Another figure is 13 seconds in 4 hours. Keep in mind that they have
a bunch of machines rendering in parallel for this, so if they need
to they can always add a few more to speed it up. They might have
already done this <shrug>
David Griffiths
>How fast can this system make its renderings? I have no experience with
>rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time becomes
>a major factor.
So far as I remember from the article about the Toaster in B5
(Amigaworld... Don't know which month), I seem to recall that with all
of the toasters rending at the same time, they can produce 15 seconds
of video in around 4 hours... Depending on the complexity of the
scene of course...
--
David Griffiths // Internet: dgr...@unixg.ubc.ca
____________ _ // Fidonet: David Griffiths @ 1:153/765.0 or 1:153/910.0
DLG "Pro" | \\/ Broadcast TV @ British Columbia Institute of Technology
Steven Lam
>a TA for a computer animation class and they use SGI (better than Indigo but
>not the best). I saw him doing a preview of his animation RENDERED and PLAYED
>in real-time. No, it wasn't as fast as it could be but considering it was
>doing everything in real-time it wasn't too bad. Has anyone here used both an
>Amiga setup and an SGI setup?
Yes, SGI's are bloody fast I admit, against a stock 4000. I'd like an
SGI, but I'd prefer to get my car first! When you look at product/buck,
the Amiga comes far ahead.
>By the way, an Indigo is faster than an Amiga even with an '040
Of course the SGI is faster than an 040, it uses RISC technology!
>(I'm talking 4000 which is full 32-bit not an accelerated
>2000 like I understand they use on B5 (which is a 32-bit processor but 16-bit
>bus).
An Amiga 2000 (Stock) contains a MC68000 with a 16 bit bus (32 bit internal
to the processor). An Amiga 4000 (Stock) contains a MC68040 with a 32 bit
bus. Both non accelerated. But when you add on an accelerator board to
the 2000, then memory bus to the math co-pro and the processor is a full 32
bit. But since there is still a 16 bit bus on the motherboard of the 2000...
an Amiga 2000 with an 040 is a bit slower than an Amiga 4000 with an 040.
>The software available for an SGI is better than Lightwave (and more
>than likely faster at rendering).
The advantage of using Lightwave over software for the SGI is that NewTek
will reprogram lightwave for your needs (if you have enough influence).
Rendering techniques can be optimized for specific needs, making a specific
render faster on a mips:bits_rendered basis on an Amiga.
>Sorry, Amiga would be cheaper but not nearly as good as an SGI.
Don't just compare what an Amiga can do with just Lightwave, against a whole
barrage of software on an SGI. That isn't a very good comparison. I've seen
render images (no necesarily on Lightwave) that blow the socks off of
anything (talking about Caligary24, Real3D-II on the Amiga). And when you
add on a graphics co-processor board on the Amiga (I think it's called
Sage), it flies right pass the SGI for 1/2 the cost.
Mike Van Pelt
>I think they have stated that they can produce 5-7 minutes of new
>animations per week. For an hour show, which can use a lot of stock
>footage, this is a lot of new stuff, more than they need in most
>cases, so they can use the extra rendering time for some really
>special episodes.
Plus, with that kind of excess rendering capacity, they have the
luxury of having time to play with the technology, experiment and
push around the outside of the envelope.
--
Mike Van Pelt | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
m...@netcom.com | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
| sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
| can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Robert DeMillo
> >Wait a minute. Which SGI setup are we talking about? I have a friend who is
> >a TA for a computer animation class and they use SGI (better than Indigo but
> >not the best). I saw him doing a preview of his animation RENDERED and PLAYED
> >in real-time. No, it wasn't as fast as it could be but considering it was
> >doing everything in real-time it wasn't too bad. Has anyone here used both an
> >Amiga setup and an SGI setup?
Yes...but no one listens to people on here, so why join in?
> Yes, SGI's are bloody fast I admit, against a stock 4000. I'd like an
> SGI, but I'd prefer to get my car first! When you look at product/buck,
> the Amiga comes far ahead.
Steven, what are you talking about? Let's do a price/performance
evaluation...this is back of the napkin, but
SGI Indigo R4000 w/ Elan Graphics:
75 MIPs, 1.2 M 3D vectors/sec $29,000 off-the-shelf
roughly: $386/MIP $0.025/ 3Dvector
Commodore Amiga 4000 ('040)
21 MIPs, 300K 2D vectors/sec $4,500 off-the-shelf
roughly: $214/MIP $0.015/ 2Dvector
Not even a really fair comparison, because the Amiga has the graphics
overhead of translating 2D to 3D in software. Plus, the off-the-shelf
Amiga is an 8 bit graphics system, the off the-shelf-Elan is a
32-bit graphics system...so it's hard to scale.
There's not a real performance 'bang-for-buck' gain with the Amiga.
> >By the way, an Indigo is faster than an Amiga even with an '040
> Of course the SGI is faster than an 040, it uses RISC technology!
Then what was your point? You weren't purchasing a car, you're trying to
produce effects on a weekly basis for a television production.
> >The software available for an SGI is better than Lightwave (and more
> >than likely faster at rendering).
> The advantage of using Lightwave over software for the SGI is that NewTek
> will reprogram lightwave for your needs (if you have enough influence).
> Rendering techniques can be optimized for specific needs, making a specific
> render faster on a mips:bits_rendered basis on an Amiga.
What?!
Anyway...as to software: Hollywood is where SGI has made it's money. They
have more experience in that field than anyone else. (90% of SGI's income
still comes from hollywood productions....) That means more software, more
support, more turnkey systems, more experienced personal...less turnaround
time.
> >Sorry, Amiga would be cheaper but not nearly as good as an SGI.
> Don't just compare what an Amiga can do with just Lightwave, against a whole
> barrage of software on an SGI. That isn't a very good comparison.
Why? That *is* what we are comparing here.
> I've seen
> render images (no necesarily on Lightwave) that blow the socks off of
> anything (talking about Caligary24, Real3D-II on the Amiga). And when you
> add on a graphics co-processor board on the Amiga (I think it's called
> Sage), it flies right pass the SGI for 1/2 the cost.
Oh please. This has gotten really ridiculous. Listen: I just started a
visualization group up and just went through a long, involved process
to purchase equipment. We looked at *everything,* including Amigas...
the choice really came down to SGI, HP and IBM's RS/6000 machine
on a bang/buck ratio. (We get a little better prices because we are
an academic institution.) When everything was totalled, SGI was
the clear leader in performance, price, support, networking,
file serving, adaption to current environments and software.
(For anyone interested, HP's Apollo series were a close second...)
> --
> Steven Lam
The other thing that you (and JS) might want to keep in mind is
company stability. When you start talking about purchasing
equipment from a vendor, and *then* getting third party hardware,
and *then* getting modified vendor software...you've got a huge
problem. You're locked into the system, and if any one of those
anchors (and Commodore is not doing *that* well) drops to the
floor of the ocean, it takes the whole ship with it.
JS has plenty of time to switch systems, and I think plenty of
time to do it...
--
- Rob DeMillo | Internet: dem...@juliet.ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Lab | America Online: exga...@aol.com
Weather Sensing - Group 43 | Reality: 617-981-2105 (office)
"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
David C. Navas
>SGI, but I'd prefer to get my car first! When you look at product/buck,
>the Amiga comes far ahead.
My guess would be scale, rater than product/buck, but I realy wouldn't know.
>bit. But since there is still a 16 bit bus on the motherboard of the 2000...
>an Amiga 2000 with an 040 is a bit slower than an Amiga 4000 with an 040.
I'm afraid that is not so. The A4000's memory access is brain-dead, for a
number of reasons. Basically they stuck an 040 on an 030-style bus, and as
a result their burst modes don't work and each memory access costs one extra
cycle over the A3000's non-burstmode access times. Because of the way the
cache works, you end up spending a lot of time reading in/out cache lines
where each 32bits is accessed without the benefit of burst.
It is true that accessing the A2000's 16bit memory is probably slower, but
I'm sure they don't do that very often.... It'd be nice to see a
ZIII toaster, I'd guess :)
If I were them, I'd buy the A4000/30 and replace the ec030 with a 3rd
party 040 board that either support burstmode to main memory or has
room for its own memory on-board.
>The advantage of using Lightwave over software for the SGI is that...
you can afford to do so. Everyone's been pricing hardware, mind telling
us clueless folk about the price of some of the rendering sw on the sgi?
From what I've heard it can get rather expensive.
--
David Navas ja...@netcom.com
dna...@us.oracle.com
"Talent develops in quiet places; character, in the full current of human life"
Robert I. Eachus
> Steven, what are you talking about? Let's do a price/performance
> evaluation...this is back of the napkin, but
> SGI Indigo R4000 w/ Elan Graphics:
> 75 MIPs, 1.2 M 3D vectors/sec $29,000 off-the-shelf
> roughly: $386/MIP $0.025/ 3Dvector
> Commodore Amiga 4000 ('040)
> 21 MIPs, 300K 2D vectors/sec $4,500 off-the-shelf
> roughly: $214/MIP $0.015/ 2Dvector
> Not even a really fair comparison, because the Amiga has the graphics
> overhead of translating 2D to 3D in software. Plus, the off-the-shelf
> Amiga is an 8 bit graphics system, the off the-shelf-Elan is a
> 32-bit graphics system...so it's hard to scale.
You lost me completely here. The best techniques for doing
overlays and 3D rendering differ between the Amiga (with or without
Toaster) and the SGI (with or without Elan Graphics), but why not do
an apples to apples comparison?
Second the statement that a stock Amiga 4000 is an 8 bit graphics
system is totally misleading. Even Commodore's literature advertises
the number of simultaneous (24-bit) colors on screen as the number of
(non-overscan) pixels. Converting a 24-bit image to HAM8 with
appropriate color register shifts takes work but that is what software
is for...
Last but not least, you are comparing native graphics on an Amiga
to an SGI with a special graphics system. The appropriate comparsion
is SGI with Elan to Amiga 4000 with Toaster or some other 24-bit
graphics board.
> There's not a real performance 'bang-for-buck' gain with the Amiga.
> Then what was your point? You weren't purchasing a car, you're trying to
> produce effects on a weekly basis for a television production...
> Anyway...as to software: Hollywood is where SGI has made it's money. They
> have more experience in that field than anyone else...
For NTSC or SVHS resolution images the Amiga IS the best choice.
For theater quality motion picture images, the SGI is the best choice.
This is why much of the CG work for Jurassic Park was done on Amigas
and the final rendering was done on SGI machines. Use the strengths
of each machine where appropriate.
A similar argument applies to the software. There is no "best"
computer graphics program. There are a lot of tools each with its own
strengths and weaknesses. You don't use a saw to drive a nail, and a
hammer is not the right choice for cutting down trees. When I see
these holy wars, I am reminded of the old saw: "When all you have is
a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Donald R Lloyd
>
>Wait a minute. Which SGI setup are we talking about? I have a friend who is
>a TA for a computer animation class and they use SGI (better than Indigo but
>not the best). I saw him doing a preview of his animation RENDERED and PLAYED
>in real-time. No, it wasn't as fast as it could be but considering it was
>doing everything in real-time it wasn't too bad. Has anyone here used both an
>Amiga setup and an SGI setup? By the way, an Indigo is faster than an Amiga
>even with an '040 (I'm talking 4000 which is full 32-bit not an accelerated
>2000 like I understand they use on B5 (which is a 32-bit processor but 16-bit
>bus). The software available for an SGI is better than Lightwave (and more
>than likely faster at rendering). How could an Amiga be faster? Oops, while
>rambling I just noticed the last part of the sentence "...still maintain
>profitibility". Sorry, Amiga would be cheaper but not nearly as good as an
>SGI.
I think the idea is that although an SGI might be faster, its cost
plus the cost of its software could be better applied to getting a large
number of Amigas. Five Toaster-euipped Amigas will render a lot faster than
one SGI :)
As for SGI software being better than Lightwave... some people might
argue with you on that one...
>
>>Rick
>>
>>
>>--
>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>_____________________________.sig____________________________________
>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rble...@ucsd.edu
>
>Jason
--
Don Lloyd | Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork |AmigaNetwork Voice Mail
d...@chopin.udel.edu | AmigaNetwork BBS (The Original!) | Info by voice or FAX
GeNIE: D.LLOYD7 | (302)368-3942 (v.32bis) | (GVP PhonePak)
BIX: DRL | (302)368-1067 (USR HST) | (302)368-4673)
Roger Earl
>How fast can this system make its renderings? I have no experience with
>rendering software myself and am curious. With a tight deadline, time
>becomes a major factor.
Since Babylon-5 uses more than one (10-20 I recall) Toaster system. which for
the same price they could probably afford one or two SGI workstations. I'd
say the Toaster setup is faster, and that IS the point of a lower cost system:
you can afford many.
--
_
|_) _ __ Roger Earl
| \(_)(_/ Wizard Online 604-322-3232
_/ r...@outb.wimsey.bc.ca
Jason Kratz
says:
>
> I think the idea is that although an SGI might be faster, its cost
>plus the cost of its software could be better applied to getting a large
>number of Amigas. Five Toaster-euipped Amigas will render a lot faster than
>one SGI :)
>
> As for SGI software being better than Lightwave... some people might
>argue with you on that one...
>
Imagince and Lightwave on the Amiga and from my standpoint they don't come
close to Wavefront or the other packages I've seen for the SGI. This whole
thing is getting pretty dumb. I just asked a simple question to begin with
and now everyone seems to be arguing. Yes, the Amiga is a cheap way to do
rendering. I have one and love it but if given the chance to get an SGI I
would drop my Amiga in a second. Not only is an SGI faster and have better
graphics capabilites - it even has better sound. Why? Cause it's a hell of
a lot more expensive. Anyone who thinks that the Amiga with a Toaster or
other video board is going to replace an SGI system is nuts plain and simple.
As far as the software the only rendering software out there that might come
close to any package on the SGI is Real 3D 2.0 because of all the advanced
features they added (like the collision stuff ,etc.). I'll have to dig thru
my crap and find my SGI info packet and post the info.
>>
>>>Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>_____________________________.sig____________________________________
>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rble...@ucsd.edu
>>
>>Jason
>
>
>--
>Mai
>d...@chopin.udel.edu | AmigaNetwork BBS (The Original!) | Info by voice or FAX
>GeNIE: D.LLOYD7 | (302)368-3942 (v.32bis) | (GVP PhonePak)
>BIX: DRL | (302)368-1067 (USR HST) | (302)368-4673)
Jason
Steven Lam
>the 2000 that have on-board disk controllers and memory, so the only time
>you go to the 16 bit bus is for displaying in native mode and talking to
>the toaster. I.e. - not very often.
I said a BIT slower, not that much slower! anyways with a 2000 you get
the 16-bit bottleneck whenever you use chip memory (since it's 16bit), or
any of the custom chips (like you implied). But in the A4000 the
modified custom chips and the 32-bit bus make it a slightly faster.
The Gitfiddler
>
?????
>
>Steven, what are you talking about? Let's do a price/performance
>evaluation...this is back of the napkin, but
>
>SGI Indigo R4000 w/ Elan Graphics:
> 75 MIPs, 1.2 M 3D vectors/sec $29,000 off-the-shelf
> roughly: $386/MIP $0.025/ 3Dvector
>
>Commodore Amiga 4000 ('040)
> 21 MIPs, 300K 2D vectors/sec $4,500 off-the-shelf
> roughly: $214/MIP $0.015/ 2Dvector
Would you explain how you come up with a number like "300K 2D vectors/sec"?
I was under the impression that the Toaster did many things in hardware, just
like the SGI.
Also, since they probably bought a 2000 with a 40MHz or so 040 accelerator,
your MIPS and cost numbers above are a bit off (I assume also that you are
including the cost of the Toaster in your $4500 estimate above, since the
4000 retails for quite a bit less).
>
>Not even a really fair comparison, because the Amiga has the graphics
>overhead of translating 2D to 3D in software. Plus, the off-the-shelf
>Amiga is an 8 bit graphics system, the off the-shelf-Elan is a
>32-bit graphics system...so it's hard to scale.
I thought that the off-the-shelf Toaster was 24 bit -- not to mention NTSC,
just right for a television...
How much would it cost to give your Indigo that capability?
>
>There's not a real performance 'bang-for-buck' gain with the Amiga.
Hmmmmm... I think that the thousands of people who have purchased Amigas
to do their video work, and the thousands more who will choose the Toaster
over an Indigo setup as they continue to see it's capabilities, would choose
to disagree.
Not to mention the millions of owners out there ;-).
>> >By the way, an Indigo is faster than an Amiga even with an '040
>> Of course the SGI is faster than an 040, it uses RISC technology!
>
>Then what was your point? You weren't purchasing a car, you're trying to
>produce effects on a weekly basis for a television production.
"Faster" is of course a loaded term. It is very likely that the Toaster
setup can, from conception to video, outperform an Indigo. Note that
"conception to video" of course includes more than rendering times.
>> The advantage of using Lightwave over software for the SGI is that NewTek
>> will reprogram lightwave for your needs (if you have enough influence).
>> Rendering techniques can be optimized for specific needs, making a specific
>> render faster on a mips:bits_rendered basis on an Amiga.
>
>Anyway...as to software: Hollywood is where SGI has made it's money. They
>have more experience in that field than anyone else. (90% of SGI's income
>still comes from hollywood productions....) That means more software, more
>support, more turnkey systems, more experienced personal...less turnaround
>time.
Hollywood != TV land.
What you say above sounds neat, but I do not understand why the producers
would want "more software..." etc when the Toaster does an outstanding job
already.
As a matter of fact, a similar logic would say that since the Amiga
dominates the video market, has more experience and software in that field
than anyone else, more experienced personnel, etc., the Toaster is the only
appropriate choice.
(There is a strange attitude these days that somehow equates quality with
posessing the latest and greatest; that is, a general attitude which
emphasizes appearance and form over content. The Toaster does an outstanding
job without being an SGI -- what's the big argument about?)
>> I've seen
>> render images (no necesarily on Lightwave) that blow the socks off of
>> anything (talking about Caligary24, Real3D-II on the Amiga). And when you
>> add on a graphics co-processor board on the Amiga (I think it's called
>> Sage), it flies right pass the SGI for 1/2 the cost.
>
>an academic institution.) When everything was totalled, SGI was
>the clear leader in performance, price, support, networking,
>file serving, adaption to current environments and software.
Fine, great. And when the producers evaluated their needs, they probably
realized that the second half of the above was a trivial concern, and that
the Toaster dominated the others in the first three areas. What we can
then conclude is that people often choose systems based on their needs and
individual concerns.
Remember, these guys are not stupid, operate in the real world of video
productions, have to pay for equipment with their own money, and have to be
good enough and successful enough to sell their product and live off of the
money earned. They also chose the Video Toaster, and have a major contract
for a major television show.
>> Steven Lam
>
>The other thing that you (and JS) might want to keep in mind is
>company stability. When you start talking about purchasing
>equipment from a vendor, and *then* getting third party hardware,
>and *then* getting modified vendor software...you've got a huge
>problem. You're locked into the system, and if any one of those
>anchors (and Commodore is not doing *that* well) drops to the
>floor of the ocean, it takes the whole ship with it.
Actually, those factors support the Amiga very strongly -- third party support
of the machine is immense, as is cooperation between them. Mixing software
is the norm, and there is lots to choose from. Commodore is not going away
anytime soon. The above argument applies to any system.
Polemic sophistry is no challenge to real-world process.
Take care :-)
>"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
> --- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
>
Hey, neat!
"HOT Damn!" -- Crow T. Robot
"Is there anything on this world I can't conquer?" -- Tom Servo
"Fire Maidens from Outer Space"
A Adams
>Commodore is not going away
>anytime soon.
Most of the above post deleted, since I agree with most of it. The SGI
stuff I've seen, while impressive in some respects, is not suited to
what I can glean of the guys working on B5. This last point is a telling
one however, since Commodore IS in real trouble. See the recent message
on comp.sys.amiga for more info , but bascially unless the shareholders
manage to oust the MD at the next AGM (coming soon) the smart money
says Commodore are saying bye-bye. :-(
--
TTFN, Zaphod (Two Heads, No Brain)*E-mail*csc...@gps.leeds.ac.uk****
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**Happiness is a cigar ...*********mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**shoved up a smoker's arse!**********Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
Tzoq Mrekazh
>In article <217hfl...@lynx.unm.edu> lj...@triton.unm.edu (The Gitfiddler) writes:
>>Commodore is not going away
>>anytime soon.
>
>Most of the above post deleted, since I agree with most of it. The SGI
>stuff I've seen, while impressive in some respects, is not suited to
>what I can glean of the guys working on B5. This last point is a telling
>one however, since Commodore IS in real trouble. See the recent message
>on comp.sys.amiga for more info , but bascially unless the shareholders
>manage to oust the MD at the next AGM (coming soon) the smart money
>says Commodore are saying bye-bye. :-(
Every once-in-a-while, I drop over to comp.sys.amiga to see what's up... And
it's always the same thing -- "Commodore is going belly-up!".
The smart money has been saying that Commodore "are saying bye-bye" for several
years now, it seems...
I dunno about down south, but Commodore Canada's had one of its best years yet
this past year.
--
o- Tzoq "I am a good speller, I am -- C-A-T, dog... ^ ^
O o- tz...@uwo.ca B-A-T, Rhode Island..." `v'
o- red...@chan.csd.uwo.ca -- Junyer Bear ^
= Bernoulli would have been content to die, had he but known such a^2 cos 2phi =
Roger Earl
> I dunno about down south, but Commodore Canada's had one of its best years
>yet this past year.
Agreed, two months ago when I was still an assistant editor at INPUT magazine,
I asked the local CBM rep about how he feels about Commodore's local sales
lately: "I am a very happy man" was his response. Also, Amiga Format,
the best selling computer magazine in Europe stated last month that CBM had a
good first quarter this year.
CBM US has always had troubles, mostly due to distribution (they screwed
themselves back in the C=64 days), but it hasn't affected the health of the
Amiga market in general and CBM certainly isn't going the way of Atari or
NeXT.
I wouldn't worry about CBM being a safe bet for purchasing Toaster or other
graphics hardware/software, they have a better market than most.