[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: redshift wat.png (1.39 MB, 590x1188)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB PNG
What are the downsides of Redshift? I'm learning it atm and so far it's by far the fastest rendering engine I have ever used. It's also pretty cheap (500$) and well documented, why would I ever use something else again?

Pic related, rendertime for 1.7 Million hairs in minutes.
>>
>What are the downsides of Redshift?

No official integration with Blender.
>>
>>602436
It looks like Redshift. I can tell its redshift. Sometimes I'm fooled by Arnold and Octane. Take that how you want.
>>
>>602436
For very large / detailed scenes where out of core rendering becomes necessary (i.e. requiring more VRAM than your gfxcard) Redshift will become drastically slower. It's also slightly uglier and has a game-ish look compared to Arnold / Renderman / Cycles.

It's still the best render engine currently.
>>
Redshift is pretty baller. One downside is that it's a 3rd party renderer, so it's difficult to have perfect integration into host apps. That said, the integration is pretty good at the moment, for Houdini at least. I can't really think of another downside, aside from it losing some of its speed advantage with out-of-core scenes.
>>
>>602440
That's not a downside of Redshift, that's a downside of Blender.
The Renderman and Vray implementation in Blender is also pretty shitty.

t.Blender user (among others)
>>
>>602436
I cannot find any tutorials for it, I am stoopid
>>
>>602559
If Redshift were some kind of international standard, I would agree. But it’s a proprietary engine whose owners have to take care of by also developing good integration tools for 3D creation suites. They have, for now, partially failed at this by not creating a bridge with Blender.
>>
>>602574
It would be a $500 plugin for a free application. They're probably wondering if there is a business case to be made in supporting Blender.
>>
>>602574
One of Blender's main failings is they have no long-term supported plugin API. This is why there is so little third party Blender integration, and what there is is so shoddy and unstable.

The wholehearted dedication to third-party integration and API provision is the main reason Maya is so successful.
>>
>>602583
>It would be a $500 plugin for a free application.

If the rendering engine merits it, why not pay? The cost of the host application doesn’t matter as long as…

>They're probably wondering if there is a business case to be made in supporting Blender.

…as there is a market behind it, like you say. I agree.

>>602634
>no long-term supported plugin API.

I didn’t think of this. However I think the may reason is that a plugin has to adhere to the GPL, and that forces the integration developers to come with intermediate binary exchange formats between the plugin and their app. Too much work for certain cases, I suppose.

The Blender Foundation could certainly work to improve in this regard.
>>
File: programsa.png (16 KB, 314x93)
16 KB
16 KB PNG
>>602436
>It's also pretty cheap
>500$
>>
>>602646
500$ is nothing for a unlocked fully commercial license. My studio got me the license on my first week for home office use
>>
>>602646

$500 once, $250 a year after that

That is incredibly cheap for a GPU renderer that isn't trash
>>
>>602570

There are tons so long as you're using Maya.
>>
>>602738
$250/year? Is that subscription or just upgrade?
>>
Any good introductory redshift material?

Can be courses/tutorials
>>
>>602849
This will teach you the basics.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvRPmhwzn2pFdLes0vcTeJQ/videos

Redshift online documentation is really good too.
>>
>>602738
>>602799

Honest question, why not just pirate it?
>>
>>602574
>Talks about international standards
>Wants Blender integration

????
>>
>>603439
Because you either get a license anyways when working at a real studio or you can easily afford one.

If you go to any reputable studio and give them work created in pirated software they'll kick you out, guaranteed. I can tell you that we would do so.
>>
>>603439
Because professionals who actually do good, desirable work don't need to steal like a little kid.
>>
>>602486
>For very large / detailed scenes where out of core rendering becomes necessary (i.e. requiring more VRAM than your gfxcard) Redshift will become drastically slower.

yeah but still faster that anything else (especially octane which would probably just crash unless you have 2 1080's)

>It's also slightly uglier and has a game-ish look
not really. you just need to layer the textures and composite the AOV's in post
I can see how for a neckbeard like you this might get your panties in a bunch, but for real world animation this is standard practice anyway

see https://vimeo.com/228849523
>>
>>602739
it's literally the same, all the parameters and 99% of the nodes are identical between programs
>>
>>604310
what an ignorant statement
>>
>>604319
No. Using pirated software for paid work is plain retarded and will get you kicked out, as it can get the studio into serious financial or legal trouble.

In an industry as small as CG, this will stick to your reputation.

That's like turning off your heating in winter because you want to save money. Some expenses are just necessary. And like I said before, 500$ is nothing.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.