Dumb question about Pixel Spread

This is one of those questions I feel like I should know the answer to, but anyway.

How heavy is Pixel Spread, processor wise? I’m trying to speed up this comp a bit and it already has too much Dof and defocus going on and I’m about to turn on the motion blur. Someone told me years ago Pixel Spread was a proc hog but I wanted to get a quick second opinion.

I’ve never particularly seen a slowdown. But if you do, there are also some matchboxes that might be faster.

1 Like

I am regularly jumping on and off iMac machines. Pixel spread is a little heavy on setups.


Compared to DoF, the Pixelspread is def. peanuts to the processingspeed. So there should also a way improving the time with another defocus node/workflow, even if all types kinda need some heavy ressources.

1 Like

As an aside, I can’t remember the exact name, but there is a SFX Pixel Spread (matchbox) that you can use in Action (or Batch I guess), that uses a Strength input – so the effect of the Pixel Spread will be wider or narrower based on the alpha or gmask input.

1 Like

Use Resize to make your own region of interest. And the time pixel spread saves you is likely more important than any hit in rendering.


Oh that’s interesting, I’ll try and hunt that down.

I went and swapped out a few of the Dof nodes with some y_lensblur and a couple of crok_defocus and the comp got much more workable.

Thanks all!

1 Like

If you are using Interpolate mode in Pixel Spread, try the matchbox called In-Fill Blur. It does the same thing and uses GPU.


Yes, slows me down when I use it… but usually worth the trade off.

1 Like