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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >> >>> Anyone tried using gpubox with Redshift? >>> >>> http://renegatt.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected] >>> > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> 9000€... it's going to be tough, but your worth it :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 January 2014 13:34, Sven Constable <[email protected]>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: [email protected] [mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan >>>>>>> > Yargici >>>>>>> > Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44 >>>>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>>> > 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 < >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>>>>> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>> > 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: >>>>>>> > [email protected]<mailto: >>>>>>> softimage-bounces@listp >>>>>>> > roc.autodesk.com> >>>>>>> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto: >>>>>>> softimage-bounc >>>>>>> > [email protected]>] On Behalf Of Henry Katz >>>>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM >>>>>>> > To: >>>>>>> > [email protected]<mailto: >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > 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 <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 < >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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> >>>>>>> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> > -- This email and its attachments are -- --confidential and for the >>>>>>> > recipient only-- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> * Stephen P. Davidson* >>>> >>>> *(954) 552-7956 <%28954%29%20552-7956> * >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* >>>> >>>> >>>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>>> >>>> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
