Future of GPU based effects

Oct 28, 2006 at 8:47pm

Future of GPU based effects

The future of Jitter is on the GPU. Which means that increasingly the answer to many questions is to create a Slab based chain of effects or slab/shader based solutions to problems. Yet, in many ways this technique degrades the end-user experience of the programming environment by killing the intuitive “building block” approach. I’m wondering if in future versions of jitter a more integrated appoach to shaders as objects might be available. As much as I’d love to work on the GPU, for video projects I find myself returning to the realm of non-gpu jitter objects and realizing how simple and wonderful the ability to work in that environment is, as opposed to complicated mess that is the GPU side. The creation of analogous GPU objects to perform the same tasks as standard Jitter objects would make this process much easier.

#28411
Oct 28, 2006 at 8:57pm

On 10/28/06, Leo Mayberry wrote:
>
> The future of Jitter is on the GPU. Which means that increasingly the answer to many questions is to create a Slab based chain of effects or slab/shader based solutions to problems. Yet, in many ways this technique degrades the end-user experience of the programming environment by killing the intuitive “building block” approach. I’m wondering if in future versions of jitter a more integrated appoach to shaders as objects might be available.

Can you explain further? Slabs are just like the CPU based jitter
objects. They get patched in the same way. If you start doing more
than video with the GPU, then you have to get your head into a
completely different system. Alot of the functionality of jitter
exists on the GPU. There are shaders for rota, repos, slide,
alphablend, xfade, compositing, transistions, resamp, blur, sobel,
etc. Are there any specific objects you think are missing?

You may want to do your experimental patching with CPU based objects
and then convert things to be GPU based when you’ve settled the design
a bit.

wes

#87156
Oct 28, 2006 at 9:19pm

#87157
Oct 28, 2006 at 9:30pm

#87158
Oct 28, 2006 at 9:32pm

#87159
Oct 28, 2006 at 9:50pm

#87160
Oct 29, 2006 at 2:14am

#87161
Oct 29, 2006 at 2:29am

The shader information didn’t come thru. I would love to take a look at this example. COuld you repost?

#87162
Oct 29, 2006 at 2:36am

Yes it did. You email probably parsed it as HTML. Change your email
settings or use a terminal to look at it ’cause it’s there. I’ve
posted 3 shaders in the past that people have said the same thing to
me about. You just gotta make it into plain text.

wes

On 10/28/06, Christopher Overstreet wrote:
>
> The shader information didn’t come thru. I would love to take a look at this example. COuld you repost?
>

#87163

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.