Thank you Tim for jumping on this one!
I would just add, that for $100 bucks you are not going to regret it at all!
You will be all setup and ready to render I will say in one day at most of
getting the hang of it.
And there is always the forums. The Redshift team is amazing not only for the
render, but also for the support and user requests.
2014/1/8 Tim Leydecker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
It´s worth using the redshift3d shaders, the new blend material is really
nice,
normal map blending works nice and the conductor/dielectric option to drive
reflection gives believable metal reflection behaviour results easily.
You´ll also get better (lights/shadow) sampling compared to using default
shaders.
Imho, if you spent time with mR or VRay or Arnold shaders, you will have
no problem transfering your knowledge to Redshift3D.
In terms of benefiting from speed while tweaking, go and set the renderers
threshold to
0.2 or even higher, I find that is good enough for judging light/color
intensities and
gives fast turnaround.
Personally, I tend to push per light lightsamples higher than default, even
if that is not
neccessary in Redshift3D´s "unified" sampling aproach, to me it feels I
have influence on
the wheight of samples anyway.
Enjoy.
It´s really, really cool.
Cheers,
tim
On 08.01.2014 19:08, Byron Nash wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
Anyone tried using gpubox with Redshift?
http://renegatt.com/
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Davidson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:sebastien.sterling@__gmail.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
9000€... it's going to be tough, but your worth it
:)
On 6 January 2014 13:34, Sven Constable
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:sixsi_list@imagefront.__de
<mailto:[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: softimage-bounces@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>
[mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM
To: [email protected].__com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[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: softimage-bounces@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> [mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>] On Behalf Of Dan
> Yargici
> Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44
> To: [email protected].__com
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:softimage@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>><__mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[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
<http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg>__]
>
> 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>><__mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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:
> softimage-bounces@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>><mailto:__softimage-bounces@listp
<mailto:softimage-bounces@listp> <mailto:softimage-bounces@__listp
<mailto:softimage-bounces@listp>>
> roc.autodesk.com <http://roc.autodesk.com>
<http://roc.autodesk.com>>
> [mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:softimage-bounces@__listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>><mailto:__softimage-bounc
<mailto:softimage-bounc>
<mailto:softimage-bounc <mailto:softimage-bounc>>
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected].__com
<mailto:[email protected]>>>] On Behalf Of
Henry Katz
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM
> To:
> [email protected].__com
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:softimage@listproc.__autodesk.com
<mailto:[email protected]>><mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:softimage@listproc.__autodesk.com
<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]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>><__mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:Angus.Davidson@wits.__ac.za
<mailto:[email protected]>><mailto:Angus.Davidson@__wits.ac.za
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:Angus.Davidson@wits.__ac.za
<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><__tel:%2B43%2F699%2F12614231>
> www.keyvis.at <http://www.keyvis.at>
<http://www.keyvis.at><http://__www.keyvis.at <http://www.keyvis.at>>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>><__mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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 <tel:%28954%29%20552-7956>
* [email protected]
/Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic/
- Arthur C. Clarke
<http://www.3danimationmagic.__com
<http://www.3danimationmagic.com>>
