If you want the best quality renders, can Arnold even compete?
What's with the profags lately? First Houdini, now RenderMan. Can't you tell that this is a Blenderian board, or do you simply choose to ignore it?
>>638685cycles isnt production quality
>>638687Cycles is used in many productions around the world, if you want the most recent examples visit the IAA in september and watch the demos there from major car companies.Instead of repeating the same brain dead shit the anons spew here you could actually take the time and research a bit what cycles can and can't do.Software haters are the worst kind of scum. Probably failed in the industry and down to a daily wage of 100$, repeating the autodesk/foundry/etc propaganda.You do realize that if the consumers actually stick together and demand shit, these companies will get shit done? Instead you choose to sling turd at each other in digital forums because you are too unskilled to even understand one of the mentioned programs fully.
>>638687it is!if you want a shit final product
>>638688>down to a daily wage of 100$,>making money in this field
>>638683They all have their place, it depends on what you want to achieve. Also, the scale of your project matters.
>>638697A normal freelancer can pull in 300-400€ easily.More if you are good or fast. Much more if you're both.
>>638701Give some tips, please. Where to try and make the first step?
>>638702- Get your skills via self teaching (very hard), college/university (hard, but some support) or (rare) traditional apprenticeship- Grind your ass off. Don't do stupid shit like speedarts or "daily renders", but produce something weekly if possible. Fill your portfolio up, dont specialize too much. Try out artstyles, techniques and as many programs as possible- Get into internships, either as part of your studies or outside of it. Be fucking useful, work independently and hard. Make yourself valuable. If you can get project responsibility, take it. Skip your evening vidya / fap session if you can have some beers with coworkers (connections- this is more valuable than gold)- If you do this enough, your internship company will want to hire you. Decide if you want a safe employee life (less money) or an unsafer freelancer life (more money).
>>638687>>638688>>638695Boys, boys. We really have to stop this whole circling-around-the-bush. If you wanna say it's shit, back it up. If you wanna say it's good, back it up as well.Here, I'll help you guys with some issues Cycles still faces:>inefficient caustics (& light simulation in general, no metropolis sampling, etc.)>no double-sided materials>inability to pause/resume renders>camera management isn't wholly accurate>denoising is somewhat poor>baking is terribleThere are likely more, but there are some decent perks to Cycles as well (albeit they are standard nowadays):>mesh lights>image-based lighting>interactive rendering>cpu+gpu rendering >volumetric renderingLike I said, these have become standard, but Cycles did support all these (save for cpu+gpu) very early on in its life cycle. Others may also include all the Disney shaders (principled/principled hair/principled volume), random walk SSS, vector-based displacements, etc.Now, feel free to add onto this list, and we'll finally have a proper argument :)
>>638683Can we stop talking about Cycles and discuss Arnold vs RendermanRenderman is buggy, cryptic and full of bizarre glitches. It does have a nice stylish look though.
>>638710could you please elaborate on this?
>>638706i feel like cycles biggest problem is how it handles light. the portals option is misunderstood and garbage in general.the light interaction with glass is none existent, it just makes glass blacker. also it does not simulate glare
>>638706I'm going to bring the sole argument that Blender/Cycles is terrible for rendering because it cannot manage a color space / exposure / gamma environment properly. Relying on baseless "filmic" color managements and other tricks isn't physically correct and just adds to all the "cheats" proper 3D workflows have successfully got rid of over the years that Blender still uses.
>>638683Do you actually use RenderMan? Does anyone outside of (a handful??) of studios? Genuinely asking.I have the impression that the user base is very low, and that it's destined to fall into disuse because of that.>>638685Honestly I think we'd all be better off if blenderfags got their own containment board.
>>638683Does RenderMan support GPU rendering yet?
>>638795It's planned for 2019, as RenderMan XPU. From what I read, it seems more like an aid for look development, seemingly not being capable of achieving pixel-perfect equivalence with the CPU engine in all scenarios.