Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Gideon Klindt]

Modo render engine has some nice parts to it- and some good things exposed
right out in front. IMHO, the biggest issues are with the "shader tree"
and, not so much on the render side, but the ability for modo to handle
large scenes AND do net rendering right.

Modo also feels more like mr in that it is a "general" rendering and
lighting ray trace engine, vs highly specialized like others might be. So
while it does have weaknesses, it doesn't seem to have as man blind spots
either.

AFAIK, ILM wanted to see the foundry work with lux to push along these last
two issues for modo and get it up to snuff.

Really don't know what to make of this though given that feature film or
large budget commercial work is not currently part of my job description!
;) Still, I could already use a shader tree, reliable net rendering, and
better handling of large scenes and scene management in modo.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Helzle wrote:

> Yeah, since 601 you can write shaders (I did a test and it's easy enough).
>
> They already have a lot of experience with separating the renderer, since
> they sold it to other companies (I think it's the renderer in the Bentley
> CAD software if I don't mix things up).
>
> I have to agree that the layer system is cool for small scenes but an
> absolute pain in the behind for larger things. It is very very easy to get
> things wrong and then you get 1000 times more things to debug at once than
> anything XSI can do wrong - it's like having all the shaders of a scene in
> a single tree - worse in a way 
> So I can't imagine Katana/Nuke users putting up with this system, but on
> the other hand, it should be rather simple to put nodes into the mix, since
> the basic structure is already there and should work just fine if wired
> together via nodes - they just seem to think that those layers are a good
> idea...
>
> One other problem with their renderer is, that it can be very hard to get
> sampling right. I think it's the first renderer I worked with where
> increasing samples can actually make noise worse, so you not only have one
> direction to optimize but two and then add in all the local material
> settings for diffuse reflections etc.
> For a recent job where I needed brushed anisotropic reflections in a
> brutally simple scene, I gave up after many many hours of trying to get the
> noise out. I ended up rendering in Lightwave - fast and in the latest
> versions very nice AA settings as they should be... ;-)
>
> I'm really curious where this will be going.
>
> But other than with AD buying XSI, I can see a lot of positive outcomes :-)
>
> Two clever parties joining...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 25 September 2012 20:12, Steven Caron  wrote:
>
>> i am also going to chime in about arnold's scalability, its a beast!
>>
>> i have never used modo renderer but have always kept my eye on it, if i
>> were to do product viz i would probably go for modo.
>>
>> but as john knoll said in the interview serguei linked, scalability is
>> something they will need to address. and if they are supporting katana they
>> better be ready to render massive scenes. i think we will see modo renderer
>> get more abstracted from modo application. they need to make a full API in
>> order to interface properly with katana, scene creation, deferred loading,
>> procedural plugins, shader api (i think they have this).
>>
>> interesting stuff!
>> steven
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Gene Crucean <
>> emailgeneonthel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Simon. Once you start working on bigger projects or have
>>> more demands than a single person/seat can handle they really start
>>> separating quite a bit. Arnold IS a beast. It handles anything you throw at
>>> it and laughs like the count from Sesame Street. Mua ha ha hua. If you
>>> are taking about simple test scenes, then the difference isn't quite as
>>> big... but put them both into a legit VFX studio pipeline and watch the
>>> weak crumble.
>>>
>>> Btw, I'm not putting down Modo's renderer. It's just that scalability is
>>> a HUGE difference.
>>>
>>> Don't get me started on that layer shader system. It's such a
>>> gimmicky. and I'll stop here.
>>>
>>>
>>> ... I feel like I'm taking this even more OT. Sorry folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Gideon D. Klindt
gideonklindt.com

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Thomas Helzle]

Yeah, since 601 you can write shaders (I did a test and it's easy enough).

They already have a lot of experience with separating the renderer, since
they sold it to other companies (I think it's the renderer in the Bentley
CAD software if I don't mix things up).

I have to agree that the layer system is cool for small scenes but an
absolute pain in the behind for larger things. It is very very easy to get
things wrong and then you get 1000 times more things to debug at once than
anything XSI can do wrong - it's like having all the shaders of a scene in
a single tree - worse in a way 
So I can't imagine Katana/Nuke users putting up with this system, but on
the other hand, it should be rather simple to put nodes into the mix, since
the basic structure is already there and should work just fine if wired
together via nodes - they just seem to think that those layers are a good
idea...

One other problem with their renderer is, that it can be very hard to get
sampling right. I think it's the first renderer I worked with where
increasing samples can actually make noise worse, so you not only have one
direction to optimize but two and then add in all the local material
settings for diffuse reflections etc.
For a recent job where I needed brushed anisotropic reflections in a
brutally simple scene, I gave up after many many hours of trying to get the
noise out. I ended up rendering in Lightwave - fast and in the latest
versions very nice AA settings as they should be... ;-)

I'm really curious where this will be going.

But other than with AD buying XSI, I can see a lot of positive outcomes :-)

Two clever parties joining...

Cheers,

Tom


On 25 September 2012 20:12, Steven Caron  wrote:

> i am also going to chime in about arnold's scalability, its a beast!
>
> i have never used modo renderer but have always kept my eye on it, if i
> were to do product viz i would probably go for modo.
>
> but as john knoll said in the interview serguei linked, scalability is
> something they will need to address. and if they are supporting katana they
> better be ready to render massive scenes. i think we will see modo renderer
> get more abstracted from modo application. they need to make a full API in
> order to interface properly with katana, scene creation, deferred loading,
> procedural plugins, shader api (i think they have this).
>
> interesting stuff!
> steven
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Gene Crucean <
> emailgeneonthel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Simon. Once you start working on bigger projects or have
>> more demands than a single person/seat can handle they really start
>> separating quite a bit. Arnold IS a beast. It handles anything you throw at
>> it and laughs like the count from Sesame Street. Mua ha ha hua. If you
>> are taking about simple test scenes, then the difference isn't quite as
>> big... but put them both into a legit VFX studio pipeline and watch the
>> weak crumble.
>>
>> Btw, I'm not putting down Modo's renderer. It's just that scalability is
>> a HUGE difference.
>>
>> Don't get me started on that layer shader system. It's such a
>> gimmicky. and I'll stop here.
>>
>>
>> ... I feel like I'm taking this even more OT. Sorry folks.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Steven Caron]

i am also going to chime in about arnold's scalability, its a beast!

i have never used modo renderer but have always kept my eye on it, if i
were to do product viz i would probably go for modo.

but as john knoll said in the interview serguei linked, scalability is
something they will need to address. and if they are supporting katana they
better be ready to render massive scenes. i think we will see modo renderer
get more abstracted from modo application. they need to make a full API in
order to interface properly with katana, scene creation, deferred loading,
procedural plugins, shader api (i think they have this).

interesting stuff!
steven

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Gene Crucean  wrote:

> I agree with Simon. Once you start working on bigger projects or have more
> demands than a single person/seat can handle they really start
> separating quite a bit. Arnold IS a beast. It handles anything you throw at
> it and laughs like the count from Sesame Street. Mua ha ha hua. If you
> are taking about simple test scenes, then the difference isn't quite as
> big... but put them both into a legit VFX studio pipeline and watch the
> weak crumble.
>
> Btw, I'm not putting down Modo's renderer. It's just that scalability is a
> HUGE difference.
>
> Don't get me started on that layer shader system. It's such a
> gimmicky. and I'll stop here.
>
>
> ... I feel like I'm taking this even more OT. Sorry folks.
>
>
>
>

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Tim Crowson]

I think those are all really great points, Simon. You should bring those 
up more on the modo beta forum.

-Tim


On 9/25/2012 12:11 PM, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:
Ya Arnold has it's flaws as do all render engines.  Modo's strong IC 
and portal lights make it much more suitable for interiors but since 
we don't do any Archvis work interiors are few and far between. 
 Arnold also suffers from not being a bidirectionaI path tracer, so 
things like caustics are a pita.


I prefer Arnold for heavy production rendering for the following 
reasons..


1.  It can handle more data.  Arnold can handle bigger and more geo, 
it's a beast.  I tested instancing a tree asset in Modo and Arnold 
using sitoa.  I got up to maybe 10million trees with billions of 
polygons in Modo, Arnold was doing substantially more with trillions 
of polygons and doing it faster and smoother.  It wasn't just better, 
it was exponentially better.  I think it rivals or better Renderman in 
this regard.


2.  Arnold is stable, really really stable.  It rarely crashes or 
spits out bad or unpredictable data and when it does it's almost 
always your fault.  Modo's renderer tends to be unstable especially at 
heavier loads and it can sometimes do things that are unexpected i.e. 
render artifacts, bad frames etc.


3.  I like using nodes in Soft using sitoa.  Modo's layer system is 
really cool for single assets or simple scenes but becomes a nightmare 
with a complex system.


4.  Arnold's proxy/reference system is awesome sauce.  Modo has no 
proxy system.


5.  Optimization is much easier with Arnold.  Better tools for 
managing ray visibility on both an item and surface level... the 
raytype node in Arnold is the single best thing ever.


6.  Linux support.

I love Modo still.  We use it for lookdev especially with asset 
creation.  These are all just hard truths that I've encountered while 
using both packages.  If was doing smaller jobs i.e. print, archvis, 
pure asset creation etc... I would probably still be using Modo, it's 
the reason why ILM's art dpt uses it. It's fast and nimble under 
lighter loads, that's where it shines.  Some people have managed to 
wrangle it into a full production pipeline and that's awesome, I just 
couldn't do it.




On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Tim Crowson 
> wrote:


@ Simon,

/"Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for
the type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is
it's no Arnold and has a ways to go before it is. /"
I dunno, I don't really think it's that far behind. In fact in
some areas, it seems better. Handles interiors a lot better,
certainly. From what testing I've done, I can't find anything to
really place modo that far behind Arnold. That's my opinion based
on limited experience with Arnold.

I know that you're in a unique position of having experience with
both, so can you elaborate on the differences you see between the
Arnold and modo renderers?

-Tim


On 9/25/2012 11:13 AM, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:

Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for
the type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is
it's no Arnold and has a ways to go before it is.

That said, it's a great match for the Foundry who now have the
ability to create content across the entire pipeline which is
probably what they were really looking for.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane
mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>> wrote:

Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is
an animation solution and they stand a chance to go toe to
toe with maya and soft if they offered bundles, at least in
any shop sane enough to use Houdini instead of maya for fx.

Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will
forsake their work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to
pimp modo's engine.

At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a
cad one barely tolerating their M&E division.

Sent from not an iPhone

On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston" mailto:b...@exocortex.com>> wrote:







-- 






--
Signature

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Gene Crucean]

I agree with Simon. Once you start working on bigger projects or have more
demands than a single person/seat can handle they really start
separating quite a bit. Arnold IS a beast. It handles anything you throw at
it and laughs like the count from Sesame Street. Mua ha ha hua. If you
are taking about simple test scenes, then the difference isn't quite as
big... but put them both into a legit VFX studio pipeline and watch the
weak crumble.

Btw, I'm not putting down Modo's renderer. It's just that scalability is a
HUGE difference.

Don't get me started on that layer shader system. It's such a gimmicky.
and I'll stop here.


... I feel like I'm taking this even more OT. Sorry folks.




On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Simon Van de Lagemaat <
si...@theembassyvfx.com> wrote:

> Ya Arnold has it's flaws as do all render engines.  Modo's strong IC and
> portal lights make it much more suitable for interiors but since we don't
> do any Archvis work interiors are few and far between.  Arnold also suffers
> from not being a bidirectionaI path tracer, so things like caustics are a
> pita.
>
> I prefer Arnold for heavy production rendering for the following reasons..
>
> 1.  It can handle more data.  Arnold can handle bigger and more geo, it's
> a beast.  I tested instancing a tree asset in Modo and Arnold using sitoa.
>  I got up to maybe 10million trees with billions of polygons in Modo,
> Arnold was doing substantially more with trillions of polygons and doing it
> faster and smoother.  It wasn't just better, it was exponentially better.
>  I think it rivals or better Renderman in this regard.
>
> 2.  Arnold is stable, really really stable.  It rarely crashes or spits
> out bad or unpredictable data and when it does it's almost always your
> fault.  Modo's renderer tends to be unstable especially at heavier loads
> and it can sometimes do things that are unexpected i.e. render artifacts,
> bad frames etc.
>
> 3.  I like using nodes in Soft using sitoa.  Modo's layer system is really
> cool for single assets or simple scenes but becomes a nightmare with a
> complex system.
>
> 4.  Arnold's proxy/reference system is awesome sauce.  Modo has no proxy
> system.
>
> 5.  Optimization is much easier with Arnold.  Better tools for managing
> ray visibility on both an item and surface level... the raytype node in
> Arnold is the single best thing ever.
>
> 6.  Linux support.
>
> I love Modo still.  We use it for lookdev especially with asset creation.
>  These are all just hard truths that I've encountered while using both
> packages.  If was doing smaller jobs i.e. print, archvis, pure asset
> creation etc... I would probably still be using Modo, it's the reason why
> ILM's art dpt uses it. It's fast and nimble under lighter loads, that's
> where it shines.  Some people have managed to wrangle it into a full
> production pipeline and that's awesome, I just couldn't do it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Tim Crowson <
> tim.crow...@magneticdreams.com> wrote:
>
>>  @ Simon,
>>
>> *"Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the
>> type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no Arnold
>> and has a ways to go before it is. *"
>> I dunno, I don't really think it's that far behind. In fact in some
>> areas, it seems better. Handles interiors a lot better, certainly. From
>> what testing I've done, I can't find anything to really place modo that far
>> behind Arnold. That's my opinion based on limited experience with Arnold.
>>
>> I know that you're in a unique position of having experience with both,
>> so can you elaborate on the differences you see between the Arnold and modo
>> renderers?
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>> On 9/25/2012 11:13 AM, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:
>>
>> Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the type
>> of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no Arnold and
>> has a ways to go before it is.
>>
>>  That said, it's a great match for the Foundry who now have the ability
>> to create content across the entire pipeline which is probably what they
>> were really looking for.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <
>> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an
>>> animation solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with maya and
>>> soft if they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane enough to use
>>> Houdini instead of maya for fx.
>>>
>>> Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake
>>> their work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine.
>>>
>>> At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one
>>> barely tolerating their M&E division.
>>>
>>> Sent from not an iPhone
>>>  On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston"  wrote:
>>>




>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Gene Crucean - Emmy winning - Oscar nominated VFX Supervisor / iOS-OSX
Devel

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Simon Van de Lagemaat]

Ya Arnold has it's flaws as do all render engines.  Modo's strong IC and
portal lights make it much more suitable for interiors but since we don't
do any Archvis work interiors are few and far between.  Arnold also suffers
from not being a bidirectionaI path tracer, so things like caustics are a
pita.

I prefer Arnold for heavy production rendering for the following reasons..

1.  It can handle more data.  Arnold can handle bigger and more geo, it's a
beast.  I tested instancing a tree asset in Modo and Arnold using sitoa.  I
got up to maybe 10million trees with billions of polygons in Modo, Arnold
was doing substantially more with trillions of polygons and doing it faster
and smoother.  It wasn't just better, it was exponentially better.  I think
it rivals or better Renderman in this regard.

2.  Arnold is stable, really really stable.  It rarely crashes or spits out
bad or unpredictable data and when it does it's almost always your fault.
 Modo's renderer tends to be unstable especially at heavier loads and it
can sometimes do things that are unexpected i.e. render artifacts, bad
frames etc.

3.  I like using nodes in Soft using sitoa.  Modo's layer system is really
cool for single assets or simple scenes but becomes a nightmare with a
complex system.

4.  Arnold's proxy/reference system is awesome sauce.  Modo has no proxy
system.

5.  Optimization is much easier with Arnold.  Better tools for managing ray
visibility on both an item and surface level... the raytype node in Arnold
is the single best thing ever.

6.  Linux support.

I love Modo still.  We use it for lookdev especially with asset creation.
 These are all just hard truths that I've encountered while using both
packages.  If was doing smaller jobs i.e. print, archvis, pure asset
creation etc... I would probably still be using Modo, it's the reason why
ILM's art dpt uses it. It's fast and nimble under lighter loads, that's
where it shines.  Some people have managed to wrangle it into a full
production pipeline and that's awesome, I just couldn't do it.



On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Tim Crowson  wrote:

>  @ Simon,
>
> *"Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the
> type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no Arnold
> and has a ways to go before it is. *"
> I dunno, I don't really think it's that far behind. In fact in some areas,
> it seems better. Handles interiors a lot better, certainly. From what
> testing I've done, I can't find anything to really place modo that far
> behind Arnold. That's my opinion based on limited experience with Arnold.
>
> I know that you're in a unique position of having experience with both, so
> can you elaborate on the differences you see between the Arnold and modo
> renderers?
>
> -Tim
>
>
> On 9/25/2012 11:13 AM, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:
>
> Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the type
> of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no Arnold and
> has a ways to go before it is.
>
>  That said, it's a great match for the Foundry who now have the ability
> to create content across the entire pipeline which is probably what they
> were really looking for.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <
> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an
>> animation solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with maya and
>> soft if they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane enough to use
>> Houdini instead of maya for fx.
>>
>> Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake
>> their work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine.
>>
>> At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one barely
>> tolerating their M&E division.
>>
>> Sent from not an iPhone
>>  On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Tim Crowson]

@ Simon,
/"Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the 
type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no 
Arnold and has a ways to go before it is. /"
I dunno, I don't really think it's that far behind. In fact in some 
areas, it seems better. Handles interiors a lot better, certainly. From 
what testing I've done, I can't find anything to really place modo that 
far behind Arnold. That's my opinion based on limited experience with 
Arnold.


I know that you're in a unique position of having experience with both, 
so can you elaborate on the differences you see between the Arnold and 
modo renderers?


-Tim

On 9/25/2012 11:13 AM, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:
Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the 
type of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no 
Arnold and has a ways to go before it is.


That said, it's a great match for the Foundry who now have the ability 
to create content across the entire pipeline which is probably what 
they were really looking for.


On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane 
mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>> wrote:


Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an
animation solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with
maya and soft if they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane
enough to use Houdini instead of maya for fx.

Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will
forsake their work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp
modo's engine.

At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one
barely tolerating their M&E division.

Sent from not an iPhone

On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston" mailto:b...@exocortex.com>> wrote:







--
Signature

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Tim Crowson]

Yeah, I kidded him about that: should call it 'Soma'!
-Tim

On 9/25/2012 11:14 AM, Johan Forsgren wrote:
"Personally, I'd love to get the modo renderer inside Soft. I doubt 
that will ever happen, but it would be sweet if it did. "


Hah! http://www.jacobobarreiro.com/jweb/moma/
If that guy get enough requests, maybe he would consider porting it to 
soft :)



JOHAN FORSGREN
CG ARTIST
Phone + 46 31 752 20 00 	johan.forsg...@edithouse.se 

Direct + 46 31 752 20 07 	Follow me at twitter.com/edithouse 


example's logo 

edit house FILM WORKS   www.edithouse.se 
Lilla Bommen 4b, S-411 04 Göteborg, Sweden 	www.twitter.com/edithouse 






--
Signature

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Simon Van de Lagemaat]

Modo is a fantastic app and it has a fantastic render engine for the type
of end user they are focusing on.  But as good as it is it's no Arnold and
has a ways to go before it is.

That said, it's a great match for the Foundry who now have the ability to
create content across the entire pipeline which is probably what they were
really looking for.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <
raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an animation
> solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with maya and soft if
> they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane enough to use Houdini
> instead of maya for fx.
>
> Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake their
> work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine.
>
> At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one barely
> tolerating their M&E division.
>
> Sent from not an iPhone
> On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message ------
>> From: Bill Collis 
>> Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:16 AM
>> Subject: The Foundry and Luxology join forces
>> To: b...@exocortex.com
>>
>>
>>
>>   Dear Ben,
>>
>> I am really excited to be able to tell you that *The Foundry and
>> Luxology are a joint entity* as of today.
>>
>> Luxology is home to the award-winning 3D software *modo* as well as some
>> of the most notable brains in the field of 3D modelling and rendering.
>>
>> modo is an established player in the design, CAD and architectural
>> visualisation worlds as well as our more familiar territory - VFX - where
>> we share numerous clients including Smoke & Mirrors, Double Negative and
>> The Embassy.
>>
>> Luxology shares our desire to build products that address genuine
>> industry need. They are innovative, customer focussed, community-driven and
>> we can’t wait to start working with them.
>>
>> Our products and background technology are very distinct, but are also
>> obviously highly complementary. In the short term we will be continuing to
>> develop the interaction between our products, which will be of immediate
>> benefit to all of our customers. We can’t wait to see what our combined
>> experience and knowledge will allow us to build in the long term.
>>
>> We’ll keep you posted on developments, but in the interim please visit
>> our Q&A page that we hope covers many of your questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill Collis
>> *CEO*
>>
>>
>> <http://twitter.com/?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377#!/TheFoundryVFX>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/TheFoundryChannel?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&id=10831155768&ref=ts&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Ben Houston
>> Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
>> http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.
>>
>

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Tim Crowson]

@Raffaele/
'All they need now is an animation solution'/. Lux made some strides 
toward that with modo 601, and it's something Luxology is working to 
improve. I'm optimistic.


/'Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake their work with rman and 
Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine./' My understanding is 
that ILM wanted to implement the modo renderer more in their pipeline. I 
know they've been using modo in their previz departments. Not sure what 
their end goal is, but it's probably safe to say they want the modo 
renderer inside Katana. I don't think anyone is wanting to 'forsake' 
anything.


Personally, I'd love to get the modo renderer inside Soft. I doubt that 
will ever happen, but it would be sweet if it did.


-Tim Crowson


On 9/25/2012 8:13 AM, Raffaele Fragapane wrote:


Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an 
animation solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with maya 
and soft if they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane enough to 
use Houdini instead of maya for fx.


Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake 
their work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine.


At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one 
barely tolerating their M&E division.


Sent from not an iPhone

On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston" > wrote:







--
Signature

Re: The Foundry and Luxology join forces

[Raffaele Fragapane]

Well, they got katana,  modo, nuke Mari. All they need now is an animation
solution and they stand a chance to go toe to toe with maya and soft if
they offered bundles, at least in any shop sane enough to use Houdini
instead of maya for fx.

Interesting times ahead. Hopefully this won't mean they will forsake their
work with rman and Arnold in favor of trying to pimp modo's engine.

At least the foundry is a company focused on vfx and not a cad one barely
tolerating their M&E division.

Sent from not an iPhone
On Sep 25, 2012 9:08 PM, "Ben Houston"  wrote:

>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Bill Collis 
> Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:16 AM
> Subject: The Foundry and Luxology join forces
> To: b...@exocortex.com
>
>
>
>   Dear Ben,
>
> I am really excited to be able to tell you that *The Foundry and Luxology
> are a joint entity* as of today.
>
> Luxology is home to the award-winning 3D software *modo* as well as some
> of the most notable brains in the field of 3D modelling and rendering.
>
> modo is an established player in the design, CAD and architectural
> visualisation worlds as well as our more familiar territory - VFX - where
> we share numerous clients including Smoke & Mirrors, Double Negative and
> The Embassy.
>
> Luxology shares our desire to build products that address genuine industry
> need. They are innovative, customer focussed, community-driven and we can’t
> wait to start working with them.
>
> Our products and background technology are very distinct, but are also
> obviously highly complementary. In the short term we will be continuing to
> develop the interaction between our products, which will be of immediate
> benefit to all of our customers. We can’t wait to see what our combined
> experience and knowledge will allow us to build in the long term.
>
> We’ll keep you posted on developments, but in the interim please visit our
> Q&A page that we hope covers many of your questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Collis
> *CEO*
>
>
> <http://twitter.com/?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377#!/TheFoundryVFX>
> <http://www.youtube.com/TheFoundryChannel?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377>
> <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?utm_campaign=GLOBAL%2012%20Sept%20Luxology%20Announcement%20Email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&id=10831155768&ref=ts&elqIsAgent=True&elq=&elqCampaignId=&elq=44ec37244b2140739c1411b24dae2efe&elqCampaignId=377>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ben Houston
> Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
> http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.
>