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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 ;) >>> >>> >> >
