I thought Development on 3Dlight got bricked on account of some American copyright/patent law pertaining to algorithms ?
As a Ray-tracer it will never beat Arnold at its own game, but maybe it has other tricks up its sleeve... I've always heard that despite its legacy in the industry PRman is a nightmare to work with, the likes of which requires 20 lighting devs to set straight. Hence why it is with great apprehension that i would approach anything that labels itself "Renderman compliant" How difficult is it to get good result with 3DL ? thats always a big thing, could never make sense of Mental Ray, ergonomics would be a big plus in my opinion regardless of render times. On 28 May 2013 18:33, Ciaran Moloney <[email protected]> wrote: > True, it originated as a REYES renderer, but now it may be better thought > of as a hybrid renderer taking advantage of both techniques when needed. > > I like working with Arnold too, but I don't think fast renders are one of > its strongest selling points. > > Ciaran > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Alan Fregtman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I haven't tried 3Delight, but Arnold is **way** too good. My gut feeling >> is Arnie is probably faster overall. >> >> That said, they're entirely different rendering architectures so it's not >> fair to compare. 3Delight is (as I understand it) renderman-compliant which >> implies they probably use the Reyes rendering model: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering >> whereas Arnold is not a reyes renderer, but a superoptimized "hardcore" >> raytracer: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics) >> >> It would be more fair to compare 3Delight against Pixar's Renderman, and >> Arnold against mentalray, than Arnold to 3Delight or Renderman to mentalray. >> >> Just my $0.02, :p >> >> -- Alan >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Leonard Koch >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> That entirely depends on the use-case. >>> Arnold is in faster most raycasting situations, but 3Delight will be >>> faster for for example motion graphics or character animations with >>> unrealistic shading. >>> And even then it can very much depend on the complexity of the scene >>> and on of what kind that complexity is. >>> Then there is also the aspect of artist time spent to get to that >>> render-time, which - depending on how easy it is to get from the default >>> state to the final render state - can wildly differ in between the >>> different renderers and shots. >>> The speed of a renderer in a production is a very complex metric and >>> can't really be summarized into a simple statement like "Arnold is faster >>> than 3Delight". >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Christopher < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Is it as fast as Arnold :) ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Morten Bartholdy wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks interesting Greg. Two questions: >>>> >>>> 1. What is your hardware setup ? >>>> >>>> 2. Could you upload it in higher resolution so we can read the menus? >>>> >>>> >>>> MB >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Den 28. maj 2013 kl. 15:37 skrev Gregory Ducatel >>>> <[email protected]><[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Guys, >>>> >>>> In case you did not had a chance to look into the next version of 3dfs, >>>> here is a little test I did. >>>> >>>> http://vimeo.com/66105781 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
