Future of GPU based effects


    Oct 28 2006 | 8:47 pm
    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.

    • Oct 28 2006 | 8:57 pm
      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
    • Oct 28 2006 | 9:19 pm
    • Oct 28 2006 | 9:32 pm
    • Oct 29 2006 | 2:14 am
    • Oct 29 2006 | 2:29 am
      The shader information didn't come thru. I would love to take a look at this example. COuld you repost?
    • Oct 29 2006 | 2:36 am
      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? >