Right now I am rendering something nothing fancy, just a simple PS. But at the same time I am working on editing something in Media Composer full HD without any restrictions.
2014/1/8 Emilio Hernandez <emi...@e-roja.com> > You can use the standard ones as they are compatible with Redshift or use > the Redshift ones. > > Of course the redshift look almost the same as the standard ones, so you > are not guessing or fooling around on what does what. But the difference > is that the Redshift ones are "physical accurate" and you will get much > better results. The Redshift Arch shader has for example an additional > option to drive the fresnel effect. Dielectric or Conductor with a k > coefficient, based on the IOR. Or you can manually dial in the 0° or 90°. > > Also you can use the default lights. But Redshift has its own also > physical accurate. > > Let's put it this way. If Redshift didn't have lights or shaders, you > can switch to Redshift and use all the default shaders and lights. I have > Redshift to start as the default render engine and start working, drawing > render regions etc, without changing anything. Not a single light or > material. > > > > > > > 2014/1/8 Byron Nash <byronn...@gmail.com> > >> When switching over to Redshift, are you all typically redoing the >> shaders using the Redshift ones or trying to rely on the compatibility with >> standard ones? I'm interested to check it out but would like to approach it >> correctly. >> >> Thanks, >> Byron >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Emilio Hernandez <emi...@e-roja.com>wrote: >> >>> It sounds promising. I don't know. >>> >>> The funny thing is that Quadros actually render slower than GTX in my >>> experience. As they have lower CUDA cores. My GTX470 alone rendered faster >>> than a Quadro 3000. As the GTX is more focused to games and Quadros to >>> faster video display processing, the Quadros have a lower memory bandwith >>> and less CUDA cores. At least from the last comparisions I have doing in >>> the Nvidia site. Actually I was planning to upgrade my GTX470 to a GTX >>> 780Ti instead of the Titan. A few bucks off the price and it has excellent >>> specs. >>> >>> GTX 780 Ti GPU Engine Specs: >>> 2880CUDA Cores >>> 875Base Clock (MHz) >>> 928Boost Clock (MHz) >>> 210Texture Fill Rate (GigaTexels/sec) >>> >>> GTX 780 Ti Memory Specs: >>> 7.0 GbpsMemory Clock >>> 3072 MBStandard Memory Config >>> GDDR5Memory Interface >>> 384-bitMemory Interface Width >>> 336Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) >>> >>> >>> >From this numbers what you are looking for, is to see which GPU will >>> perform faster are the number of CUDA Cores and the memory bandwith. The >>> higher the better. As the memory bandwith is how fast the data can be >>> transfered to memory to be processed by the CUDA cores. >>> >>> Some guys are already using Redshift with RoyalRender. I don't how fast >>> they are rendering, but now you can have a render farm with cheap >>> processors and a couple of this GPU inside. >>> >>> A quick example. >>> >>> The same scene in round numbers per frame in my machine. >>> >>> Arnold: 15 min >>> Redhsfit: 4 min >>> >>> So you can expect at least a reduction of 73% in your render times. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/8 Dan Yargici <danyarg...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> Anyone tried using gpubox with Redshift? >>>> >>>> http://renegatt.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Davidson < >>>> magic...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 here. Redshift is faster on one machine than Mentalray on two of >>>>> the same CPU (i7 950) >>>>> and I am using a Nvidia Quadro FX 3800 (older card) >>>>> I would imagine multiple CUDA cards would be lightning fast. >>>>> Redshift is also so well integrated into Softimage. Very little >>>>> learning to be up and running in a short time. >>>>> Basically, just a few custom shaders, the rest are the existing >>>>> shaders. >>>>> >>>>> Well worth the $100 Beta and then $300 more when the first release >>>>> comes out. >>>>> The tech support is outstanding. I was an Alpha user. Very happy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Emilio Hernandez >>>>> <emi...@e-roja.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey Sebastian have you tried Redshift. The beta is only 100USD and >>>>>> it works like a charm, it is full integrated into Softimage and unless >>>>>> you >>>>>> are going to do Hair or Strands it is worth every penny. Specially for a >>>>>> one man show. Forget about CPU and use the GPU. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my case I can continue working while I am rendering and that is >>>>>> surely a big added value. >>>>>> >>>>>> Faster than MR and faster than Arnold, and zero flickering with GI in >>>>>> animation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014/1/7 Sebastien Sterling <sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 9000€... it's going to be tough, but your worth it :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6 January 2014 13:34, Sven Constable <sixsi_l...@imagefront.de>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe true but one thing to keep in mind is you don't have to spend >>>>>>>> extra money for mental ray (at least no significant amount). For one >>>>>>>> man >>>>>>>> shows like me mr is still useful. I use it on a small farm with 8 nodes >>>>>>>> plus the workstation. Switching to arnold will cost me 9000€ . Thats >>>>>>>> roughly the same cost that my whole DCC apps are about. I see mr like >>>>>>>> I see >>>>>>>> the FXTree...it's does not compete to nuke but it's integrated in soft >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> already there. I agree that there aren't any reasons to stay with mr >>>>>>>> except the the expense factor and legacy things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sven >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: >>>>>>>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM >>>>>>>> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now while we are at it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I´m currently preparing assets that need to be free of 3rd party >>>>>>>> functionality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This means I have to set them up with a mR shading network to start >>>>>>>> folks off with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mental ray. The common thing between 3DSMax, Maya and Softimage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kill it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It´s not getting anyone anywhere anymore. I don´t want to discuss >>>>>>>> details or legacy reasons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kill it. It´s over. It won´t come back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Selling three different DCC apps that actually share the fact that >>>>>>>> you will first have to invest in a 3rd party renderer to get something >>>>>>>> looking half way decent out of them can´t be the most ideal situation >>>>>>>> but a >>>>>>>> pretty nice way of creating an industry standard of wasting people´s >>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>> with forcing them in personal overtime. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a crap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Provide a renderer that actually works as advertised. Or don´t make >>>>>>>> me pay for that mR crap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 06.01.2014 11:38, Graham Bell wrote: >>>>>>>> > Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. >>>>>>>> The tech was ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the Xbox. >>>>>>>> > The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the >>>>>>>> middle of when a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. >>>>>>>> People were caught in the middle of whether to go short for the >>>>>>>> Dreamcast, >>>>>>>> or go long for the PS2. Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the >>>>>>>> Xbox. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind >>>>>>>> both, but then I've always been used to jumping between the two, even >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> in the Power Animator and Soft3d days. >>>>>>>> > I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, >>>>>>>> but I think this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse >>>>>>>> than any other package to learn really. The one thing to remember about >>>>>>>> Maya, is that it's very open, it was designed that way. So there can be >>>>>>>> different (some would say to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, >>>>>>>> Maya >>>>>>>> has a lot of preferences, so you can actually change many things, >>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>> the UI. It's mastering those things, that can often be the trick. I >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> see people now, some experienced Maya vets, who aren't using the >>>>>>>> hotbox or >>>>>>>> marking menus correctly and they can be key to Maya's UI and usability. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on >>>>>>>> some of >>>>>>>> > Maya's UI though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me >>>>>>>> > started.......:-) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com >>>>>>>> > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Dan >>>>>>>> > Yargici >>>>>>>> > Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44 >>>>>>>> > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but >>>>>>>> got chewed to pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation >>>>>>>> won. >>>>>>>> When Sega finally gave up on the console business every man and his >>>>>>>> dog >>>>>>>> came out singing the praises of the Dreamcast. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek < >>>>>>>> s...@tidbit-images.com<mailto:s...@tidbit-images.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed >>>>>>>> or filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based? >>>>>>>> > It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios >>>>>>>> closing than Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya >>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>> studios, but I still smell a pattern there. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I always felt that the number of users on Softimage is directly >>>>>>>> related to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a >>>>>>>> remarkable >>>>>>>> job in the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like >>>>>>>> that happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence. >>>>>>>> > Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use >>>>>>>> Softimage, and those who have never tried. -> Get more prople to >>>>>>>> seriously >>>>>>>> try it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS >>>>>>>> PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION????????? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya >>>>>>>> when required... and Maya being the "Industry Standard" makes you >>>>>>>> understand so many things about the industry standards... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > [http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg] >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy >>>>>>>> > <szabol...@crytek.com<mailto:szabol...@crytek.com>> >>>>>>>> > So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS >>>>>>>> PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION????????? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with >>>>>>>> Maya, >>>>>>>> > but seriously guys...It's so overcomplicated, and >>>>>>>> brainkilling...In >>>>>>>> > Softimage almost everything is just fine (OK, we need >>>>>>>> development), >>>>>>>> > but in Maya, the easiest task takes quite long compared to >>>>>>>> > SI...Finally I found myself fixing UVs, Unfolding, etc. in >>>>>>>> > Softimage...Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a big >>>>>>>> > breath, and continue working with Maya...But seriously, Softimage >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> > way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no >>>>>>>> PaintFX, >>>>>>>> > but for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> > way faster, modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don't >>>>>>>> > understand, how come that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I >>>>>>>> > swear guys, that I'll spread the Word of Softimage >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Cheers >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Szabolcs >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > From: >>>>>>>> > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto: >>>>>>>> softimage-bounces@listp >>>>>>>> > roc.autodesk.com> >>>>>>>> > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto: >>>>>>>> softimage-bounc >>>>>>>> > e...@listproc.autodesk.com>] On Behalf Of Henry Katz >>>>>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM >>>>>>>> > To: >>>>>>>> > softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto: >>>>>>>> softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Good thing I asked. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote: >>>>>>>> > Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz <hk-v...@iscs-i.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:hk-v...@iscs-i.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Steve, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on >>>>>>>> the bleeding edge? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Cheers, >>>>>>>> > Henry >>>>>>>> > On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote: >>>>>>>> > really? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > install pyqt >>>>>>>> > set softimage to use system python, uncheck... >>>>>>>> > file>preferences>scripting>use python installed with softimage >>>>>>>> run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just >>>>>>>> 'import >>>>>>>> PyQt4' >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > s >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson < >>>>>>>> angus.david...@wits.ac.za<mailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many >>>>>>>> great tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> install to work. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> > Stefan Kubicek >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> > keyvis digital imagery >>>>>>>> > Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3 >>>>>>>> > A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien >>>>>>>> > Phone: +43/699/12614231<tel:%2B43%2F699%2F12614231> >>>>>>>> > www.keyvis.at<http://www.keyvis.at> >>>>>>>> > ste...@keyvis.at<mailto:ste...@keyvis.at> >>>>>>>> > -- This email and its attachments are -- --confidential and for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> > recipient only-- >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> * Stephen P. Davidson* >>>>> >>>>> *(954) 552-7956 <%28954%29%20552-7956> * >>>>> sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com >>>>> >>>>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
