FF3: Slow

Quote
We're using a very old Adobe Photoshop SDK (for host compatibility and legal reasons), and recompiling it for 64-bitness may turn out to be problematic or impossible. [...] Most likely, the 64-bit plugin mode won't make it into the release of Filter Forge 2.0 - but we may release it in a free update after that.

Quote

We'll be adding support for 64-bit (full support for Windows versions and partial support for Mac OS X, as I explained elsewhere), however, I'm not sure that the feature makes it into 2.0 -- there are higher-priority things on our plan. As for 3600x3600, such sizes -- and much larger ones -- will render perfectly fine on our current 32-bit system, and going 64-bit won't bring any speedup on such small tasks. Actually, 64-bitness doesn't bring any speedups other than those that might result from being able to address more memory.

Quote
Yes, but a 64-bit Photoshop plugin is a necessity, as more and more pros upgrade to CS4 -- which includes a 64-bit version of Photoshop.

To put things into perspective, here are some random quotes from Vlad on the topic of 64-bitness. [My emphasis]

Good to see you still posting Fred.
Thats one of the things that I found, not really annoying but odd...Presets also save that anti-aliasing info.....The only way to override that is create new presets with that anti-aliasing info as you like or as you said adjust manually each time...

Agreed, a global AA Override would be great!

I remember requesting that a while ago, along with a global force seamless tiling option.

For the record:

Coming fr om a VFX background in commercials/feature film (I'm working as a Shading|Lighting|Rendering Lead Artist for a large germany-based VFX company), I do not find rendering in FF to be excessively slow.

The way I see it, this whole discussion appears to be a battle between two differently tuned "frames of reference": One is tuned to the reality of rendering in the VFX world (where rendering a 4K frame can literally take days in worst cases), and the other is tuned to the realm of applying filters Photoshop-style (wh ere the wait times are comparatively negligible).

Now, I can see why someone with a photoshop-style "frame of reference" would quickly become frustrated with rendering FF filters at print resolutions: FF filters are simply nowhere near as optimized as the built-in PS filters. Coupled with the oftentimes sub-optimal construction of library filters, an average FF filter is likely to spectacularly blow apart the aforementioned individuals' render time expectations. A VFX person on the other hand will not have any problem with a 4K image taking an hour to render. They're simply used to the wait that comes with heavy computation.

So, I'm convinced this whole discussion really comes down to differing perspectives and expectations. Yes of course, FF Inc. should always strive to make FF render faster. But then again, FF renders just fine for the things it does.

Example: While writing this, I'm rendering one of my complex texture filters at 4K resolution on my laptop. Rendering time is nearing an hour, and I'm thinking: "Well, it would have taken much longer for me to paint this by hand in Photoshop." Then I rendered 'Grin Inc.' at 4K resolution in 1 min 40 sec, and I'm thinking: "Yup, it really is all relative!"

Quote
When one reads how Filter Forge is presented, one has, IMHO, a reason to expect that they will experience rendering times that are similar to the referenced product ... Photoshop.

Yes, that's the expectation that is cultivated.

IMHO, the misunderstanding arises because of the usage of the term 'filter'. Take the photoshop filter 'Gaussian Blur', for example. Its equivalent in FF is the Blur component. ONE component! Take 'Difference Clouds'. FF equivalent: Perlin Noise. Again, ONE component.

But - and here is the crux - FF filters usually are comprised of dozens of these components, so technically an FF filter is not equivalent to a PS filter. An FF filter is more like a whole chain of PS filters being executed in sequence.

Now, imagine firing one PS filter after another, with dozens upon dozens fired in sequence. The result is much more comparable to an artist sitting in front of PS, working away. In effect, an FF filter is like a procedurally defined working process. Consequently, we really need to compare FF rendering times to artist working times. If an FF filter does something an artist could do, but it does it faster, then that's where you get value out of the product.

So, my point is: You really can't compare rendering speeds between PS filters and FF filters, because the two are different beasts.

Actually FF rendering is utterly slow even for VFX terms. Any 3d soft have it's own node based shading and procedural noises and it doesn't take hours to render just a flat square poly with a procedural material and displacement even to a decent resolution.

And it's actually often takes less time to make a few procedural noises in Zbrush and add few elements by hand than wait when FF finish its rendering.

Slow render is a huge disadvantage of FF. Allegorithmic Substance designer do almost the same at a speed of light. I don't like it and would prefer FF any time. Filter Forge imo is much more convenient, flexible and easy to work with a huge base of free filters and examples.

But the waiting kills me. I have almost abandoned it . They do need to do something urgently.

Probably if FF would be a plugin not to Photoshop but rather 3ds max and use Mental ray or Scanline for rendering it also would work at a speed of light and it even could be possible to use some of specifically 3d features like occlusion/curvature/edges effects on sharp geometry turned into masks for other filters. Without baking into textures first like you need to do for Substance.