Comments

ritsmer wrote on 5/27/2009, 12:28 AM
Just tried it here for comparison: 10 seconds of "Simple 4 Point" renders in 4 min 53 seconds - a little more than 1 frame/second, which is quite Ok as Starburst is a heavy thing.

Have you got like 10 virusses running on your machine? :-)
baysidebas wrote on 5/27/2009, 5:41 AM
"Have you got like 10 virusses running on your machine? :-)"

Probably not, but I think it's time Lars put the Commodore 64 out to pasture ;>)

I remember my first experiences with Pixar's Typestry on a 386/16 with 2MB RAM machine running WFW3.1. Took overnight to render a single frame! And I was deliriously happy to have the capability.
farss wrote on 5/27/2009, 7:18 AM
It might help if Lars did say at what resolution he's rendering this thing at. Based on everything else he's been doing it's probably 1080p but he really should confirm this and anything else relevant to his issue.

Bob.
Marco. wrote on 5/27/2009, 8:17 AM
Starburst has always been very slow on render (even when it was offered in the Radiance package). It's just the way this certain filter works. It needs an incredible amount of CPU power. I wouldn't worry too much.

Marco
LarsHD wrote on 5/27/2009, 10:21 AM
1920x1080 29.97 to uncompr AVI.

It does however seem like a bug or a combination of things that makes it so unbelievably slow. I was out shooting some video today and coming back it told be that I had to wait some 4 hours something...

I'll quickly sell my Commodore 64 and see if it makes any difference.


Lars
SCS PBC wrote on 5/27/2009, 12:06 PM
32-bit floating point processing?
gpsmikey wrote on 5/27/2009, 1:38 PM
I've still got a VIC 20 downstairs if anyone needs it ... :-)
Come to think of it, I still have my old CP/M system down there with a 4mhz Z-80 in it and DSDD 8" floppy drives (1.2 megs each !! )

mikey