Not a myth at all! In Arnold really the quality comes down to like four sliders, where you basically crank up your samples. :p
I don't have experience with hair but I doubt it's terribly complicated. On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Sebastien Sterling < sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds good Alan, the more testimonies we can get the better, > especially like the bit about freeing up artists time to concentrate on the > creative aspects > > I assume the intuitiveness and ease of use is not a myths then ? > > > On 15 March 2013 23:16, Alan Fregtman <alan.fregt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We use it for everything here at Rodeo FX http://www.rodeofx.com/ >> and have been so happy with it there's even a press release about it: :) >> http://www.awn.com/news/business/rodeo-fx-taps-arnold-boost-pipeline >> >> >> It's really insane the sheer monstrosity of geometry and textures you can >> throw at it, and still get a sweet looking render out. We did mechanical >> metallic things for a recent movie that were really heavy, with dozens of >> 8k textures, with motionblur. Piece of cake for Arnie! >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Sebastien Sterling < >> sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
