One of the big Game changers in both Redshift and Octane is just pure speed and scalability. Octane also has a standalone mode which is node based and the way you can bundle up parts of a shot to be imported as just one node really makes it a dream system for anyone who has a love affair with node based things. You can create file based texture libraries that are very easy to extend and plugin to scenes The new render layers and passes in 2.23 and above is incredibly powerful.
For us, our students will be exporting alembics to be textured, lit and rendered in Octane standalone. Having to re-export a few alembics now and again is nothing compared to trying to figure out why a Maya rig breaks on the renderfarm and not on your machine. Coupled with using the GPUs on the lab machines when they are not in use adds a serious amount of rendering power. Personally I prefer Octane to redshift , but that’s because like Perry I just really love the power nodes give me. Setting up shots is an absolute breeze. Octane 3 looks pretty damn amazing. I really have a soft spot for Arnold, however I do think they are going to have to do something about speed. In the same way they came an destroyed the previous incumbents market share, Redshift and Octane have the potential to do it to them. Time = Money afterall. There is also Octane for Modo and Houdini (Maya and Soft as well of course) now for folks looking to not use the standalone. This being said we are not a big VFX house. I suspect Arnold still has a very good grip on that for now because of all of their integrations and proven stability. Kind regards Angus -----Original Message----- From: Marc-Andre Carbonneau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2015 06:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Continued use of Softimage question Hi guys, Not being in the hi-res movie/ad industry anymore, I'm pretty surprised RedShift seems to have taken a place quite quick in your heart and more importantly in your pipeline. Of course the closer to real-time you get and the cost lowering Redshift provides is definitely interesting but I could not have predicted that Redshift would be such a game changer, at least for Softimage users.(I don't know about the other DCC users as I don't hang that much in 3D forums. Where is that taking you? I mean, what do you guys see as the next step? I heard Octane is pretty slick too but have you checked out Brigade? Is Arnold working towards this direction as well? Curious MAC -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis Billard Sent: August-19-15 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Continued use of Softimage question We’re still a Softimage pipeline, and just like most who are replying, the main reason is for the ease in lighting, rendering, and pass setup. We have an Arnold renderfarm but we are finding ourselves using that less often in favour of Redshift. Houdini is on our radar and we’ve been tinkering with it, and we have a Modo license but haven’t had the time to even install it. Overall I think that we are still more efficient using Softimage as it is, than we would be switching to a newer workflow, which (without wanting to start that whole discussion again) speaks volumes about the quality of Softimage, bearing in mind that we can assume its development essentially finished 5 years ago! Cheers, Jean-Louis Digital Golem > On 19 Aug 2015, at 12:08, Sandy Sutherland <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > After a stint out of the Softimage fold - mainly in setting up a Houdini > rendering and VFX pipeline somewhere, and now I am at Axis animation, doing > pipeline tools and setup - I wanted to get a feel for this - > > Who in the world is continuing to use Softimage? Who might still be on the > lookout for high end Soft Riggers, pipeline, tools etc...? > > Just wondering, as I consider the future for myself and family. > > Thanks > > Sandy <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%;"> <tr> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> </tr> </table
