Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DirectX9 - For More Than Just Gamers?

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the interesting-concepts dept.

Graphics 311

Xev writes "HEXUS.net are showing a review of a new product called 3DEdit. This uses the DirectX 9 3D rendering engine; 3D transitions; DirectX 9 Shader-based filters, in order to give you a powerful home DV editing suite. This proves a lot more value to me as a Video editor than a card which just lets me play the latest games. Perhaps there is more use for these cards even at a consumer level?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Typo (4, Informative)

PhraudulentOne (217867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468428)

For more THAN just Gamers.

Re:Typo (3, Insightful)

Carthag (643047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468476)

If it were only a typo it wouldn't really be a problem. However, a and e aren't nearly close enough for this to be anything but ignorance. :)

Re:Typo (-1, Offtopic)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468550)

This along with there/their (no-one even seems to know of the existance of they're) really gets me; enough that I wrote an entire page of rants about it, and I have sucky English! (for a native speaker)

I understand thoe(w) and teh and similar transpositions because of keyboard layout, but word selection shouldn't be so darn hard!

Re:Typo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468573)

I agree -- these submitters really need to get they're act together.

Re:Typo (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468601)

What about the editors? They're the ones who have the obligation to fix those mistakes, I think...

Re:Typo (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468634)

And oh yeah, I only saw your joke after I posted that :D

Re:Typo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468757)

Your joke about slashdot editors fixing spelling errors was funnier.

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468786)

This is slashdot. I think you mean "you're joke"

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468619)

"No one" does not require a hyphen.

Re:Typo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468532)

More pet peeves....

its/i t's

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468645)

Check out the "test systems" RAM specs in the article.


2 bytes should be enough for ..... hmmmmm wait

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468667)

I figured the headline was just some kind of "stream of consciousness" poem.

DirectX9 - For More
Then Just Gamers?

Grammatical Errors... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468724)

for more then just morons.

Re:Typo (1, Redundant)

FIGJAM (29275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468741)

How does a crowd of geeks not understand basic grammar?

Like, doesn't every geek recognize the IF... THEN... ELSE logic?

I am going to take this opportunity to say to all the people who make mistakes like this: Whenever you hear about illiteracy problems, you are part of the statistics.

Hemos is meant to be amongst the king of geeks, operating Slashdot and all. Maybe Slashdot should be News For Dumbass Illiterate Nerds instead.

If you cannot spell very well and/or often cannot use correct grammar then you are just fucking ignorant and you need to recognize this fact. You lack basic knowledge and for it you should have "I am ignorant" stamped on your forehead daily until you at least achieve above average communication abilities.

It's about time these people went back to third grade to learn basic English.

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468790)

How does a crowd of geeks not understand basic grammar?

Like, ...

Let's all just sit back and wait for the irony to sink in.

Slashdot BASIC v2.0 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468831)

10 REM *** I AM REALY COOL ***
20 FOR A = 1 TO 50

I think this is why most languages use > instead of MORE THAN as a construct :p

Re:Typo (1, Interesting)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468762)

Why, oh why, does this matter? It's just one wrong letter. As long as the original meaning of the sentence isn't changed, who cares? "Then" or "Than", people are still going to understand that it means "DX9 used by gamers and others".

Why do people insist on complaining about minor grammatical errors? Even if their original causes were different (ignorance vs finger placement), they still have the same ultimate effect as typos: absolutely none. Unless the sentence is so badly mangled that it can't be understood anymore, what's the big deal?

Re:Typo (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468835)

What's the big deal of correcting it? If it helps a single person learn the proper use of then vs. than, then it was worth it.

Re:Typo (1)

jdeisenberg (37914) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468907)

Why, oh why, does this matter? It's just one wrong letter.

As another post points out, this is a matter of word confusion, not a simple typo. In either event: if someone posted sample code to slashdot with a one-letter difference that created a syntax or logic error, would you be equally unconcerned?

A grammar lesson (1)

GatesGhost (850912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468878)

LOL. its annoying to see people (presumably well educated) cant tell the difference between "than" and "then"; the former implies some sort of comparison, the latter is used to denote some sort of consequence or a temporal change ("he is dumber 'than' her"; "if i do this, 'then' i am dumb"; "i will do one thing, 'then' i will do something else")

Re:Typo (1)

SenorChuck (457914) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468879)

Who modded these posts? They should all be either -1 Offtopic or -1 Troll. How did they get modded Insightful or Informative? Time to meta-moderate!

Let The Jesus Jihand Begin: ( +2, Patriotic ) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468888)

Buck Fush [whitehouse.org]

One of my sources just forwarded me a copy of a rather intriguing document about Dr. James Dobson. In the remainder of this letter, I plan to summarize the contents of that document in an effort to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. Let's start with my claim that Dobson will prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses what I call noisome nymphomaniacs with indelicate and uncontrollable rage. The tone of his statements is so far removed from reality, I find myself questioning what color the sky must be in his world. His statements such as "Society is supposed to be lenient towards self-centered hucksters" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

Okay, now it's time to offend a few people. Actually, I hope not to offend anyone, although Dobson's lieutenants quash other people's opinions, as though it were a disgrace to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from Marxism, insurrectionism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that by an odd twist of fate, Dobson's game is to woo over subhuman profiteers by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Dobson has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Dobson's vaporings are about as useful to society as a hundred deutsche marks were in 1923 Germany. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Dobson. Whenever someone tells Dobson not to divert our attention from serious issues, Dobson gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for him, it really does.

You've never heard that his intention is to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice? That's because his bedfellows have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that he is completely versipellous. When he's with plebeians, Dobson warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against Jacobinism. But when he is safely surrounded by his compeers, Dobson instructs them to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. Some critics have called him viperine. A handful insist he's hidebound. Dobson's serfs, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.

Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: I, not being one of the many cacodemonic utopians of this world, do not find platitudes that are reckless, nerdy, and refractory to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe Dobson's crusades are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of gnosticism. Easy as it may seem to put inexorable pressure on Dobson to be a bit more careful about what he says and does, it is far more difficult to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. I resent being exposed to foolhardy sad sacks. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party.

Be that as it may, he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: I, for one, find his cacoëthes loquendi most irritating.
Fact: We have already fallen into his trap.

Fact: He has done inestimable damage to everything around him.

In addition, he possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Incidentally, many people respond to Dobson's effete, psychotic imprecations in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. How can we trust feral mafia dons who actively conceal their true intentions? We can't. And besides, my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to shatter the adage that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy.

Dobson has been offering the worst sorts of feckless, shameless party animals there are a lot of money to embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I cannot promise not to be angry at Dobson. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Dobson -- to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers. If he honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. Leaving aside the behavior of other vexatious, bleeding-heart miscreants, I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that Dobson shouldn't turn the trickle of denominationalism into a tidal wave. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed. He contends that if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

If we let Dobson promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide, then greed, corruption, and McCarthyism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Contrary to the impression that uncontrollable, crafty radicals offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their treatises. Just because I understand his prognoses doesn't mean I agree with them. Dobson's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. I can't stress this enough, but Dobson can get away with lies (e.g., that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications), because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Dobson is lying.

He claims that children should belong to the state. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another dour attempt to sue people at random. No one today believes that no one is smart enough to see through Dobson's transparent lies. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. If everyone does his own, small part, together we can nourish children with good morals and self-esteem.

Nobody wants Dobson to ruin people's lives, but Dobson insists on doing it anyway. I correctly predicted that he would put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. He has spent untold hours trying to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that the union of theory and practice, in his hands, becomes a union of pomposity and authoritarianism? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that his demented, stentorian apothegms are a shout to the world that, one of these days, he will permit daft drug lords to rise to positions of leadership and authority. But upon further investigation, one will find that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Dobson will force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics. And to overcome these fears, we must take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For it's amazing how low he will stoop to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

Note that Dobson is an inspiration to uneducated-to-the-core loons everywhere. They panegyrize his crusade to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on crazy Trotskyism and, more importantly, they don't realize that if Dobson thinks that he can make me roll over and play dead, then he's barking up the wrong tree. I indisputably would have expected him to at least listen to my side of the story. It is unclear whether this is because in the good old days, when courage, honor, devotion, duty, and loyalty meant something, it was comparatively easy to acknowledge that he is dead set on defending his position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say, because his treatment of demagogism mirrors the attitude that many illogical opportunists hold towards neopaganism, or a combination of the two. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Dr. James Dobson?

K. Trout, CEO

Definatley (1)

The Islamic Fundamen (728413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468437)

If the video card could take some of the processing power required to make DV movies away from the CPU, youd be in business. Itd be like having a 2.4 ghz chip plus a 400 mhz chip..... sortof.

And? (4, Insightful)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468445)

Using DirectX to create a horribly non-standard and ugly interface? Meh, it's been done before.

And?-Port a PC. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468505)

"Using DirectX to create a horribly non-standard and ugly interface? Meh, it's been done before."

So how much Mac Video Editing software runs on PCs?

Why Lord.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468451)

Can Americans not learn the difference between "Then" and "Than".

Ummm (-1, Redundant)

Numair (77943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468452)

"DirectX9 - For More Then Just Gamers?"

Surely the headline meant more than? And I thought this was a place for nerds ...

BoardMatch: board relationship management [boardmatch.com]

Re:Ummm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468493)

I hope your site gets slashdotted beyond belief. You're worse than a fucking spammer.

Die a horrible, miserable death, fucker.

Retard editors (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468458)

'Then' indicates a span of time. Than coupled with more indicates a higher degree of one thing over another. Dumbasses.

Perhaps you will come to this conclusion? (4, Insightful)

delta_avi_delta (813412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468464)

Perhaps there is more use for these cards even at a consumer level?"

Is it just me, or has almost every second story today had some kind of spurious leading comment tagged on to the end?

Give me facts dammit, I can make my own opinions from there!

Re:Perhaps you will come to this conclusion? (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468559)

Slashdot isn't a news site, its more of an aggregator of tech related stories, as such limited analysis by the submitter is appropriate.

Re:Perhaps you will come to this conclusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468720)

Yes, but must the analysis be so limited?

I feel a little stupider for having read today's headlines.

Yes, I meant "stupider."

Well, maybe not today, but... (5, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468580)

Is it just me, or has almost every second story today had some kind of spurious leading comment tagged on to the end?

"Perhaps this is the end of Microsoft?"
"Perhaps this is Apple's rebirth?"
"Perhaps Sun is growing up?"
"Perhaps Firefox really is taking over?"
"Perhaps Linux really is taking over?"
"Perhaps games are sacrificing gameplay for graphics?"
"Perhaps RIAA/MPAA execs really do eat babies?"
"Perhaps AMD's stuff is better than Intel's?"
"Perhaps Bush really is an autistic monkey?"

Re:Well, maybe not today, but... (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468632)

You misspelt "" as "perhaps"

oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468652)

If you really believe all of those, you're a damned fool.

Re:oh boy (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468791)

I didn't say i belived them all, infact 4 is possible but i dont believe it.

Would you trust somebody who used theft and deciet throughout their career to not have ulterior motives?

Im just undecided on which of the first three (although im leaning toward beliving its because of the tax breaks)

Yeah, maybe (2, Interesting)

DOS-5 (852324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468494)

Most 3D APIs are good for doing this sort of thing. I think OpenGL would have been a better choice for it though. Although OpenGL is a little behind Direct3D in terms of standard features I still find that it's not only easier to use but generally much faster. I just hate being forced to put absolutely everything into a stupid primitive list.

Oh and I've found that Direct3D has major issues with modifying and accessing texture data directly, which would be necessary for something like this.

Re:Yeah, maybe (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468655)

Although OpenGL is a little behind Direct3D in terms of standard features

That's news to me. You got anything to back this assertion of yours?

Re:Yeah, maybe (1)

DOS-5 (852324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468766)

Until the newer version of OpenGL is available you're going to find most of the extra functionality through OpenGL extensions rather than the API itself, and any extension is not always guaranteed to be there. At least if they had some way to check for capability through the API (like Direct3D does) it would have been made easier on developers.

Re:Yeah, maybe (1)

pmjordan (745016) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468867)

I see a contradition here, emphasis added:
...I still find that it's not only easier to use but generally much faster.
I just hate being forced to put absolutely everything into a stupid primitive list.

Care to explain how OpenGL immediate mode is faster than Direct3D Vertex Buffers?

Disclaimer note: I've used both, and am currently using OpenGL due to its open nature.

Light-hearted flamebait: In addition, if you think OpenGL is easier to use than Direct3D you clearly haven't understood OOP or C++.


In the same boat (2, Interesting)

KirkH (148427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468501)

We're actually considering going this route with an app here at work. It's a GUI-intensive app that spends most of its time drawing to the screen using custom MFC controls. It's fast enough most of the time but begins bogging down when we try to push through too much data.

Anyone have any experience going the DirectX route? Would it possibly be faster than what we're doing today? I assumed from my experience with the interfaces on games (Unreal Tournament, etc) that DX would be slower.

I've used it as 3D Map Renderer for Numerical Data (2, Interesting)

freejamesbrown (566022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468654)

It's as good as anything, imho. The learning curve can be a pain depending on backgrounds and what technologies you are coding in. DX9 has a lot of .NET stuff that's sorta solid, yet still has a little bit of a beta quality to the API if you ask me. I got my job done and people were happy. (This is of course, as of a year and a half ago... so things like documentation have probably gotten way better.)

If you are in MFC land, DirectX isn't a bad choice. Of course, I'll always have a soft spot for OpenGL, but platform situations are often out of our control.


Re:In the same boat (2, Interesting)

chris09876 (643289) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468664)

One of the issues (especially if you're planning on deploying the app) is that your customers will need graphics cards. I know it sounds obvious, but a company I worked for about 2 years ago did the same thing. Most of their customer machines didn't have current graphics cards, and they were unwilling to buy them (which is strange, seeing as the software was selling for like $10,000). In the end, we ended up just giving away an nvidia card with every license. It worked, but that's an issue you should probably be aware of. We weren't, and it caught us off guard.

Re:In the same boat (1)

KirkH (148427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468774)

It's an in-house app developed for company use only. We don't deploy to off-site customers, so we have some control over what hardware it's run on. Current minimum gfx card is a GeForce4MX. Others in the mix are Radeon 9700s and GeForce 5900s.

What was your experience with your apps performance compared to regular 2D?

Re:In the same boat (1)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468730)

Use OpenGL, it's a better API, works on more video cards, and works on more than just Windows boxes.

Re:In the same boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468812)

"works on more video cards" ? Lol
Thats not what my 40% failure rate logs of my game tells me.

Sys requirements... (1)

gandell (827178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468506)

"Nvidia GeForce FX 5700 is the bare minimum."

I guess I was expecting a little more for such high video card requirements. I just don't see the benefits of this as compared to other video editing software. Anyone care to enlighten me on what this can do that others cannot?

Re:Sys requirements... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468544)

"Anyone care to enlighten me on what this can do that others cannot?"

You can add fancy 3D effects to your home movies, just like a real wedding video editor :) !

Wake up! (4, Funny)

NYhXc (810051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468521)

WOW, that's the ugliest interface I ever saw at a video editing program!

Re:Wake up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468898)

Totally. And the review said the interface had major functional mistakes and omissions.

Use a technology if it gives a real benefit. Don't use it because it is there. I can't imagine writing a 3D interface library was easier than optimising a decent 2D interface system as already provided by Microsoft.

I'd have liked to have seen this put up against iMovie on a Mac.

Re:Wake up! (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468899)

I think the final page of the review said it best "Tenomichi's 3D Edit is a curious beast, and a very British kind of editing application."

Lots of style, not so much substance. I'll stick with Avid.


OpenGL (5, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468539)

OpenGL stands for "Open Graphics Library". Microsoft did Direct3D as a way to lock 3D content into the Microsoft platform. Only id Software's stance on OpenGL for gaming saved the day. At the time, even Microsoft admitted that OpenGL was more appropriate for "professional" 3D apps like CAD. Now I'm sure they'd like to lure developers into using Direct3D for professional apps, just as this developer has done.

Developers should use OpenGL in preference to Direct3D if they want cross-platform compatibility, or simply to use a better API. One way to do this that provides a lot of flexibility is to choose a high-level scene graph library that uses OpenGL or Direct3D at a low level.

OpenGL apps run on Windows, MacOS and Linux. OpenGL has always been "For More Than Just Gamers".

Re:OpenGL (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468640)

The benefit to DirectX is that it does so much for the developer, it takes care of sound/input/networking. All of which aren't fantastically easy to recreate, unfortunately.

When a DirectX game gets ported to OS X or any other platform you'll often find that the multiplayer is limited to the platform you're using.

Perhaps someone can suggest some other libraries/frameworks for input/sound/networking. There's GLUT [opengl.org] for input, but it's pretty simple so it might not work for everyone.

Re:OpenGL (0, Troll)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468755)

OpenGL is only a graphics library. Its comparison is Direct3D. For the rest of DirectX, there's SDL, although I have no idea how they compare.

As for networking, I don't know of any decent games that don't suffer from bad netcode that use DirectX for the networking layer.

Re:OpenGL (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468875)

For the rest of DirectX, there's DirectX. The control and sound parts of a game are such a small portion that they should be easy to replace for other systems.

Has it really gotten to the point (3, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468540)

That it's faster to render the 3D controls than to do a 2D paint of them? Even the article points out that it restricts the user to specific hardware configurations and shuts out traditionally popular cards for video editing. All for a "purty" interface.
The underlying workings of 3D Edit mean that it is picky what platform it runs on. There's a long list of compatible graphics cards on Tenomichi's website at http://www.tenomichi.com/Compatible.htm. Essentially, a DirectX 9 adapter is required, which currently doesn't include any of Matrox's graphics cards.

Re:Has it really gotten to the point (1)

MyIS (834233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468644)

Today's videocards have their own CPU (aka GPU), capable of crunching all sorts of numbers in a parallel fashion. Thus, a lot of useful things can be done faster, or at least as fast on the GPU, than the main CPU - at the very least you are letting the main CPU do something else meanwhile. That's what the article points out.

In general, 3D cards get to do more and more "conventional" 2D graphics tasks nowadays, Apple's Quartz being one of the examples.

Has it really gotten to the point-2.5 D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468840)

"In general, 3D cards get to do more and more "conventional" 2D graphics tasks nowadays, Apple's Quartz being one of the examples."

They already do. As someone pointed out, the 2D is implimented using some of the 3D hardware. The old days of one chip for 2D and one for 3D are gone.

Also modern 2D interfaces (even Quartz) aren't going to tax the GPU as much as say 3D would.

Right, but... (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468891)

You're still requiring a GPU.

(I know, I know... it's like saying "but you're still requiring a math-coprocessor" just before the Pentium came out... I'm just sayin'...)

Re:Has it really gotten to the point (1)

Jimmy The Leper (734441) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468705)

Well, if your 2d images of controls are in system memory, then yes, it is MUCH faster to just draw a textured quad. If both were kept in video memory, then I suspect the difference is speeds between a straight blit and drawing a textured quad would probably be negligable (compared to a blit from system memory).

I don't really know much about graphics hardware performance except for that unless you're using many fancy pixel shaders the biggest bottleneck on a graphics card is the AGP bus.

Re:Has it really gotten to the point (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468855)

But for 2D interfaces you don't blit the entire screen. Only the portions that change (and the mouse drawing/redrawing is handled in hardware). That's why there's all this built-in functionality in the Windows GDK to handle clipping and redraw areas and such.

For a 3D interface, you're pretty much guaranteed of having to redraw the entire screen. Now that's doable with a 3D card and you have the same performance. But as I pointed out, it knocks off certain other users that have "non-approved" cards or older hardware (which is almost always non-approved after a year or so)

I'm not against 3D rendered interfaces (they're cool for games and fancy displays) but I question the need for such a beast on a video editing tool.

It also breaks UI "law". The interface is no longer consistent with Windows so it requires some effort on the part of the user to learn new interactions. (Though in this techno-savvy society I don't think that's as big of a concern).

Or to put it more simply: It's a whiz bang feature that adds a nice coat of gloss to a product but cuts off a percentage or potential customers by the sheer hardware requirements and/or custom interface.

AA required? (3, Interesting)

Geccoman (18319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468549)

From the article: "It's even necessary to turn on anti-aliasing in the graphics card drivers to smooth the on-screen elements of the interface."

I can see this needing a little more horsepower to really run great. I love the effect of AA, but my meager P4 2.4 can't always take the extra processing required. I wish they had tested the program on a lesser machine than a Dual Xeon. =0

Re:AA required? (2, Funny)

maxbang (598632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468666)

Oh god I hope AA isn't required. I'm incapable of editing video without my bitter lager.

Re:AA required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468768)

If it keeps crashing you'll need to call CAA!!!

(That's AAA for you 'merkins...)

Re:AA required? (1)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468674)

I love the effect of AA, but my meager P4 2.4 can't always take the extra processing required. I wish they had tested the program on a lesser machine than a Dual Xeon. =0

Except that the AA is taxing on your videocard, and it won't matter if you have a dual xeon if your card is a Geforce2 MX200.

Re:AA required? (1)

cthrall (19889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468702)

If it's necessary to turn on anti-aliasing on your video card, your CPU speed might not matter as much as what video card you have.

Ugly UI, Functional UI (1)

wcitechnologies (836709) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468565)

I think operating systems designers could take a lesson from these guys (the windows have depth!), but I wouldn't suggest the same thing for window style designers (the windows are ugly!).

Re:Ugly UI, Functional UI (4, Interesting)

amalcon (472105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468745)

I have a friend who works for Sun Microsystems, and he tells me they're working on a 3D version of JDS (don't get me wrong, a desktop system is the LAST thing I'd want to see Java used for, but that's not the point). Among other things, you can rotate a window, say, 80 degrees and stick it in a corner. It's then still recognizable, but it doesn't take up much space. You can also turn things around and write notes on the back. This is a REAL use of 3D in a graphical shell. Now, if only somebody would take their idea and implement it in C++ (or some other language with a goal other than portability).

consumer level?! (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468586)

Did the poster even read the review? The machine 3D Edit was tested on had dual Xeon CPUs running at 3.06GHz with 1MByte L3 cache, water cooling, 2 gigs of RAM, 15,000rpm SCSI hard drives, and a Radeon X800 XT.

Exactly how many CONSUMERS have THAT system?!

Re:consumer level?! (1)

jborawski (847100) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468691)

uhmm... I believe the poster was inquiring as to wether this technology could be applied to future applications whose requirements/price reflect more of what the average consumer can consume.

Re:consumer level?! (0)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468801)

The poster wrote: "Perhaps there IS more use for these cards even at a consumer level?" He didn't say "there WILL be more use." Thus, it's quite obvious he was talking about current technology, not pondering about future technology.

Re:consumer level?! (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468717)

I used to.

Then I found out it still wouldn't run Longhorn, so I sold it.

All I got left is this damned t-shirt.

A text-based medium requires literacy (-1, Redundant)

gobbo (567674) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468602)

For crying out loud, can /. use fully literate editors please? I'm really embarassed by this, as I just referred an academic to this site. Pfft.

Or maybe I'll just loose my elitism, and start speling like everyone else, and call it the slashdot affect.

Re:A text-based medium requires literacy (1)

iamthemoog (410374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468647)

I'll just loose my elitism ...embarassed by this too?

Re:A text-based medium requires literacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468657)

read it again, sheesh.

Video Shader (5, Interesting)

sklib (26440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468628)

A friend of mine who used to work at ATI made a video shader demo [ati.com] that shows some neat video effects you can do in just a pixel shader -- i.e. render 1 rectangle that fills the screen with the video as your texture, and do all the "fun" stuff in a pixel shader. The ATI developer page that links to the binary is here [ati.com] .

If you look at the requirements for that demo, it wants a radeon 9500, which means that cards have bene powerful enough to do these things for years. I wouldn't be surprized if apple's video editing tools used the video card to composite scenes off-screen. Probably the same thing for newer versions of Premiere.

more use for these cards even at a consumer level? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468653)

Perhaps there is more use for these cards even at a consumer level?

Mac OS X.

business apps should use this untapped power (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468675)

I've always wondered about the untapped potential of video cards.

My father is an architect, and while he has the highest rated hardware his applications take no advantage of the 3d acceleration technologies of the video card - it seems like such a waste to me. All this effecient rendering power in these little affordable cards, and no serious business apps taking direct advantage of that.

Matrox RT2000/RT2500 (2, Interesting)

1984 (56406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468679)

The (now venerable) Matrox RT2000/2500 made use of the 3D features of the graphics card for video processing. There was still an additional board doing a lot of the work, but it was the same basic notion.

It was very impressive playing with real-time 3D transitions, flips, (one) alpha channel and so on at DV res one a standard PC. IIRC Final Cut HD depends similarly on the graphics board to be able to edit HD content on a Mac without additional hardware.

DirectX Website (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468681)

looks like microsoft arnt so enthusiastic and have pulled the directx page: http://directx.microsoft.com/ ;]

Um... (1)

Mystic0 (807930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468693)

DirectX is a WINDOWS product. As long as Microsoft controls it, it is useless unless you don't care about your product being cross-platform.

Any sort of fancy API you can write for DirectX can be written for OpenGL, although it may be a bit harder.

Hemos, your a retarted masterbator (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468709)

Learn to spell, dumbo.

not new (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468743)

Nvidias volume control software for nforce based motherboards with onboard sound use directx

Directx has been used for things other than games for years

Hell my tv tuner card ive been using since 1998 uses directx

DirectX is good at it. (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468749)

Come on, sincerely I think DirecX is something nice, at the end, it is only an API, and well it has a lot of features that can be used in other areas other than gaming.
Have there have been some use of VR for combating phobias here [tudelft.nl] and it also could be used as a way of visualizing data (dont you remember that scene in The Matrix where some girls that control the doos of XX (whats the name of the Matrix city??) they had cool interfaces, and I think it could be used to do that.

If this turns you on, get a Macintosh... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468764)

The whole GUI is OpenGL-based and GPU accelerated... not just one application on a few video cards...

Winblows InDirectX Components (-1, Troll)

KingBahamut (615285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468815)

blech. Windows product that has little or nothing to do with my daily life. Almost as utterly useless as dot net. =)

Wow, that looks shit (-1, Redundant)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468825)

I didn't think it was possible to get an uglier, clumsier interface on an NLE than the default Cinelerra GUI. Seems I was wrong.

Revolutionary interface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468846)

It was revolutionary when Fast wrote it 7 years ago.

Unique UI != Good UI (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468849)

I thought the review showed this...

"To say that 3D Edit has a unique interface is a rather large understatement. The fact that the GUI is entirely rendered in 3D means that it diverges entirely from Windows standard features. There is no file menu along the top, and no button bar beneath. Instead, everything is operated using proprietary buttons and dialogues. With no context-sensitive help or tool tips, this takes some getting used to."

Eh, ouch.

"Almost all Windows apps put a handy Look in: drop down at the top of the File>Open dialogue, containing common destinations such as My Documents and drive letters. But with 3D Edit, finding files stored outside the default locations is a laborious task of cycling up and down directory tree structures in the Browser Tool. Theres no recent-files list either, and thats a further pain. The file dialogue is fundamental to using 3D Edit."

"The 3D Edit interface is full of such quirks. The bottom line is that a close read of the HTML-based manual is a necessity for anyone hoping to make any sense of this software."


Thanks, but do you offer this editor with a normal UI? No?

Anybody noticed... (1)

fozzmeister (160968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468904)

... that picassa is super smooth when moving things around, it feels like its using d3d stuff etc. even my dad who's the biggest technophobe around commented on how smooth it was. This is on a Matrox Mystique however!

I use DX9 and HLSL to turn a machine... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468906)

...only capable of performing machine vision on 2-4 video streams into a machine that can run multigaussian motion detection on 20+ video streams via pixel shading. Image processing can really benefit from the floating point monsters that are today's consumer level game cards.

BTW, the shader for multigaussian motion detection is really large and yet runs at THOUSANDS of video frames per second including the time to upload a dynamic texture (video frame) to the card every frame render and pulling it back down to get the motion map. ;)

Without the texture upload and download(a useless test but indicates the relative power of these 'game' cards) the shader runs in the TENS OF THOUSANDS of frames per second.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account