Yes some testers found the out of the box shaders a little lacking. On 15 March 2013 23:08, Sebastien Sterling <sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The are pretty paramount on consistency, its been a problem in the past > and that was with just 1 renderer > > > On 15 March 2013 23:06, John Clausing <jclausin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> One other item to consider.......we do a lot of product work as well. >> Most we choose to stick with MR. Because of Arnold's transparency issues. >> >> The point being, use the best tool, why not have multiple renderers if >> one (MR) comes with Soft? They have different looks/capabilities for sure. >> Pick what's best >> >> J >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Sebastien Sterling < >> sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ow and thanks John, i have been shown this prior by one of the color >> keyers, most haunting, its a pleasure to see fresh things, and definitely >> that is an incentive we are gunning for. >> >> On 15 March 2013 22:52, Sebastien Sterling >> <sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Thanks Steven, a fist full of people here, have been beta testing Arnold >>> for the past couple of months, however they seem to have come down pretty >>> split 50/50 half. >>> >>> pros - >>> >>> >>> - Amazing GI, catches so much more then 3Dlight >>> - can handle massive scenes >>> - Anything polygon renders really fast >>> - user friendly and intuitive (at least for basic operations) >>> - great feedback from previews >>> - sss is really nice too >>> >>> >>> cons- >>> >>> >>> >>> - it's seems to struggle with fur and transparency, and that's a >>> problem >>> - difficult to anticipate render times ( wild differences between >>> users ranging from 6min to 48min to past an hour per frame) >>> - and of course the GRAINZZ ! (nothing you won't have heard before) >>> >>> >>> I am part of those who would like to see Arnold installed, however old >>> habits die hard and there seems to be a fair amount of ill will on behalf >>> of some of the testers, however things like fur we don't have the luxury to >>> ignore; there are quite a few fur ballz in this feature, a few feathery >>> ones too. >>> >>> >>> it would be safer not to purchase it and that is why we of the pro >>> Arnold are looking for external examples and observations. which might tip >>> the balance. >>> >>> >>> On 15 March 2013 22:16, John Clausing <jclausin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We just finished this with Arnold >>>> >>>> http://vimeo.com/61292772 >>>> >>>> We love it,the integrated GI, and Final rendering are terrific. >>>> It takes a bit of time to figure out the optimization, but we love its >>>> very unique look. >>>> >>>> John Clausing >>>> Director of CG >>>> Poetica >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Sebastien Sterling < >>>> sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Good evening/day everyone ! >>>> >>>> >>>> The people i am working for are currently debating whether or not to >>>> take on Arnold, as their official renderer on their next feature film. One >>>> of my character fx friends has been Beta testing it to great effect, and >>>> now has to make a case for the switch from 3DLIGHT to Arnold. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If there are any Arnoldites out their, i was wondering if you had any >>>> test renders demonstrating Arnolds efficiencies\ deficiencies VS other >>>> renderers; It doesn't matter if its softimage maya or modo.. or mental ray, >>>> PR man, vray, maxwell... >>>> >>>> The extra data would be very much appreciated especially with identical >>>> scenes, written observations are equally welcome. >>>> >>>> So if you've anything at all to share, many thanks ;) >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
