Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Really?
I don't have the infinito plugin. But it didn't seem to be anywhere near the capability of Carrara.
The Carrara terrains are quite good, and the replicators are awesome. After using themfor quite a while I find them fast and quite powerful.
What can the infinito plug in do that Carrara cannot? I may have to buy that...
It would be nice to see how this all works out. I might be happy with DS if its render engine didnt suck so much and I don't try to argue Reality plugin as it is cool but doing special lighting effects and back lighting as far as I can tell are not possible.
Fingers crossed and waiting.......
??? 3Delight is Renderman. As in Certified Compliant. As in it renders the same way PrRenderman (Pixar), and all other Renderman Compliant renderers are required to. Shaders follow RSL. Saying "DS's renderer sucks" is the same as saying "Renderman sucks." Are you willing to go on the record as saying that the Dominant Renderer in use for feature films "sucks?" Have you even gone to 3Delight's site? Did you know that District9 (the movie) was done with 3Delight? Did you know that more than a few large orgs use the same 3Delight that DS uses from Maya?
What DS lacks is a set of "Uber Cool" presets that make all renders "pop" out of the box. This is mostly a function of not getting a Renderman expert to create a set of presets, not having a sucky renderer.
EDIT: Take a look here. http://www.3delight.com/en/index.php/projects DS uses the same EXACT versions as was used here.
Kendall
Okay, akulla3d, you've really gone and done it now....
I think you face the real possibility, if you do indeed go on the record as stating that the Dominant Renderer in use for feature films "sucks", that you will be banned from 3D completely. And I mean a team of guys at your front door who come in and remove your hard drive and any copies of any 3D related software, and ban you from ever purchasing any 3D related product ever again. I'm serious. Because they're all connected, you know...all the 3D companies, they're all connected, and they have very strict policies against renderer bashing. I also think there's a distinct possibility of lightning striking in your vicinity, mocking by your peers and a bunch of other bad stuff.
Anyway, for the record, I want to state that I am not affiliated in any way with Mr. Akulla3d, and any opinions expressed in his posts are not shared by me in any way.
Nothing personal dude, I just don't want to offend the 3D gods 'n stuff.
But I don't think I will have to worry about a team of guys at my front door if I just say that I do agree that the D|S renderer, at least when I used it last, was dreadfully and painfully slow.
Hold on, there's someone at the door....
The full 3delight render engine, as you say is the best, or one of the best in the industry..whats lacking is Daz's woeful implementation of what is in effect 3delight 'lite' in studio.
SK.
I am in no way anywhere near an expert in render engines, but let me attempt to get Mr. Akulla3D off the hook before he gets cross examined by prosecutor Sears.... :)
And if anyone has more knowledge in the matter please correct me...
I think we can all agree that what you see in the final rendered image is a function of far more than solely the work of the "render engine". Can I get an "amen" on that?
For example it depends upon the type and character of the lights implemented in the software. Some have area and volume lights, some don't. It also depends on the type and character of the shadows the lights cast, which can vary significantly with application. It also depends on the way materials and shaders have been implemented in the various applications. And the list goes on...
Now, I also believe that the Renderman specification is not an all-encompassing specification. And this is where I'm dredging up my foggy memory from long ago, but I recall it was a specification on the interface between the "making" and "rendering" parts of CG software. And I also recall it was fairly minimal, and left a lot of stuff up to the developers.
So I think that, bottom line, you could hypothetically take a D|S scene, transport it into one of those other Renderman compliant applications, render it right out of the box, and probably get different results. Now, whether the result is better or just different is an entirely separate thread that I want no part of. But I think it's reasonable to assume that just because they have compliant renderers doesn't necessarily mean that everything that goes into the resulting image is identical.
So if akulla3D perhaps overstated the "render engine" aspect, I think the basic concept of preferring the rendered output from different applications is fairly reasonable, no?
Actually, it isn't "lite" -- the render engine is all there, including use of every core in the machine (which isn't available otherwise without a seriously expensive license). What isn't there are some of the command line utilities, and nice presets that help one not well versed in RSL. This is rapidly changing as one can see with the volume of new shaders being released for the DS GUI interface. The ability to output RIB has been available for years. Those willing to modify that code could do so, and those who wanted to take the output into another Renderman engine could also do so.
If one wanted the pieces not shipped with DS then one can go download a full install of 3Delight. Then all you're missing is some "cool" presets.
Kendall
I just reset my downloads for Carrara 8 Pro and I got the 8.5 Beta. Why!!!???!!! I needed to install it on my work Mac and when I tried to enter the serial number that is listed in my account, it would not except it. How the heck do I get the previous non beta version?
David
??? 3Delight is Renderman. As in Certified Compliant. As in it renders the same way PrRenderman (Pixar), and all other Renderman Compliant renderers are required to. Shaders follow RSL. Saying "DS's renderer sucks" is the same as saying "Renderman sucks." Are you willing to go on the record as saying that the Dominant Renderer in use for feature films "sucks?" Have you even gone to 3Delight's site? Did you know that District9 (the movie) was done with 3Delight? Did you know that more than a few large orgs use the same 3Delight that DS uses from Maya?
What DS lacks is a set of "Uber Cool" presets that make all renders "pop" out of the box. This is mostly a function of not getting a Renderman expert to create a set of presets, not having a sucky renderer.
EDIT: Take a look here. http://www.3delight.com/en/index.php/projects DS uses the same EXACT versions as was used here.
Kendall
Humm seems you are some sort technical historian. Show me a decent realistic DS render that didnt take 4 days setting up and 3 days of tweeking (reality plug in not allowed). My BMW 135i has a six cylinder engine in it, and it puts out 300 horse power. Now my neighbor's Chryster has a six cylinder engine in it too but it only puts out 105 horse power. Just cuz you have a -- and I quote -- "3Delight engine" under the hood doesn't mean it has enough other accessories to do the job.
I have plenty of experience using DS -- in fact I have been using it since it was a beta here and could never get any decent render out of it.
Now getting back to the real subject at hand. Where is my Carrara 8.5?
Humm seems you are some sort technical historian. Show me a decent realistic DS render that didnt take 4 days setting up and 3 days of tweeking (reality plug in not allowed). My BMW 135i has a six cylinder engine in it, and it puts out 300 horse power. Now my neighbor's Chryster has a six cylinder engine in it too but it only puts out 105 horse power. Just cuz you have a -- and I quote -- "3Delight engine" under the hood doesn't mean it has enough other accessories to do the job.
I have plenty of experience using DS -- in fact I have been using it since it was a beta here and could never get any decent render out of it.
Now getting back to the real subject at hand. Where is my Carrara 8.5?
Please provide your definition of "decent realistic" for me and I'll see what examples I can find for you. Seriously.
Yeah, a shiny new Carrara8.5 would be nice.
Kendall
So can I assume from your lack of response to my suppositions about different outputs from similar render engines that you don't disagree with the premise that they can give different results? Because like I say, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff, and if I'm off base I'd like to, well, get back on base.
Don't want to get thrown out by the pitcher.
Kendall,
besides price or gui, why use one un-biased/realistic renderer over another?
I've seen great renders with each.........3Delight, Maxwell, VRay, Fry, Indigo, Lux, Kerkythea, Mental Ray Octane, and now Cycles, etc.
Couldn't find a good comparison besides the Wiki.
So can I assume from your lack of response to my suppositions about different outputs from similar render engines that you don't disagree with the premise that they can give different results? Because like I say, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff, and if I'm off base I'd like to, well, get back on base.
Don't want to get thrown out by the pitcher.
Actually, no. I am collecting references for the inevitible challenge to whatever it is I say. If you won't listen to me then maybe you'll listen to "published experts." I'm culling through information that I have that is available without paying for access... most things Renderman come with a price attached.
RSL and RIB are standarized programming languages with an accepted API, just like C++ or HTML. Therefore, there are a nominal set of requirements that all "compliant" renderers must meet. One of which is that the identical code will create nominally the same output. (For the purposes of the rest of this: "same" == "nominally the same") That being that some "statistical variation" is allowed but the results should be the same from all of the standard API. With that being said, there are "enhancements" allowed to the renderers that are not part of the spec, so renderers are allowed to "specialize." However, RSL/RIB code is intended to be portable from one renderer to another and give the same results from the same code when not using proprietary features.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RenderMan_Interface_Specification for a Wiki Article. Specifically see the section 1.1 on "Required Capabilities"
I have included some pointers to Renderman discussions/articles. None cover this exact topic, but until I can refer to one that doesn't require a paid subscription for you to read, I don't want to give those out.
http://www.3dworldmag.com/2010/01/15/how_to_choose_rendering_software_part_3/
http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-800082.html
Kendall
Well, I think the choice of what renderer to use depends on a lot of stuff. And yeah, they call can make nice renders, but like I say, most of what you see in a render is a function of a lot of stuff outside the actual render engine itself.
First you have to define what "good" is, and nobody has done that so it comes down to personal preference. The other factor is that many of the renderers you mentioned do different things, and render differently. Some (unbiased) use realistic material types and lights, etc., but take longer to get a usable result. Others render quicker, but use shortcuts to get there, and that is often seen in the results.
It all depends upon what you're using it for. It's all about the tool for the task. Bottom line, it depends. But you first have to define what you need in a renderer before you can answer the question. But like I say, nobody does that, so they just look at other peoples' results and decide, "Ooo, nice render, I need to get me one of those".
Wow. I appreciate you going to the effort to get the info.
And the fact that I'm asking you directly, and also asking for people to correct me if I'm wrong, means that I definitely will listen to you. Unlike some others here, I am interested in the facts, and learning about stuff. So I'm happy to listen to anyone with real information. It's just those with irrational opinions who stick to their guns in spite of the facts that I have a problem with.
And really, I have enough respect for your opinion in this area, based on other stuff, that I don't need a big list of papers. But if you tell me that in fact the Renderman spec is comprehensive, and one Renderman will render a given scene the same as the next, I'll believe it. Honestly, all the detailed C++ programming stuff is so far beyond me that it wouldn't help anyway....
Absolutely. Any renderer can create great renders.
How to select one over the other? I say: "don't" I have many different tools available for what I do, Maya with Mental Ray, Maya with 3Delight, DS, Carrara, Blender, and many many more. Each type of renderer has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if one is smart s/he will utilize the strengths of all available tools. Even straight raytracers like POV have their uses :-) .
What sets Renderman apart from the "built in" render engines is the ability to decouple the engine from the interface, reprogram the pieces, move the scene (RIB/RSL) to a completely different environment, and then render it. Does that make it better? Not necessarily. More flexible certainly, but the complexity has its drawbacks.
What I don't understand are those that will talk down what they don't know about. Poser users will dismiss DS because they have no idea of the power of 3Delight, DS users will dismiss Poser over lack of Firefly/Tempest knowlege, Carrarists dismiss both because they don't know about those other render engines. And on and on.
All of these are tools, just tools. Use the tool that gets the job done.
Kendall
Yeah, but you have to admit that Poser/Firefly (was it Poser 7 the last time I used it...) had renders that were really, really bad, no? Maybe I didn't put enough effort into it, but damn, I recall getting some very soft and unexciting renders with that thing. Probably the main reason I jumped off the Poser ship so quickly. Of course I realized later how totally awful the entire program was, aside from the cloth.
But yeah, different horses for different courses, or whatever the expression is. I do think people like to simplify their lives, and too many options gives them a headache, so they like to knock everything other than what they choose to like. Makes life simpler.
And also there's the added bonus: if you knock all the others, it suddenly makes your choice the best one in the world which is good for the ol' ego, I suppose.
Yeah, but you have to admit that Poser/Firefly (was it Poser 7 the last time I used it...) had renders that were really, really bad, no? Maybe I didn't put enough effort into it, but damn, I recall getting some very soft and unexciting renders with that thing. Probably the main reason I jumped off the Poser ship so quickly. Of course I realized later how totally awful the entire program was, aside from the cloth.
But yeah, different horses for different courses, or whatever the expression is. I do think people like to simplify their lives, and too many options gives them a headache, so they like to knock everything other than what they choose to like. Makes life simpler.
And also there's the added bonus: if you knock all the others, it suddenly makes your choice the best one in the world which is good for the ol' ego, I suppose.
The Poser default settings were pretty bad. But, Firefly/Tempest is a REYES based render engine and, while not Renderman Compliant, uses the same base rendering algorithms that define the spec. What this means is that, with enough tweaking, the renders could look much better than they did. It is similar to the situation that DS has right now... LOTS of power, not so good a default starting point.
For whatever reason, people tend to want to internalize their selection of software... be it OS, or Office Software, or 3D environment. I'm sure some of it is a bit of laziness (not wanting to learn anything else), some of it may be monetary, some just emotional justification for their choice(s), and sometimes even just a bit of being a lemming and going with the crowd.
There is that old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Kendall
Hello,
I wanna only point out that in my experience the success of a rendering engine is mostly due to materials (presets, editors or both) jointly with the talent of the user, and not only to the chosen algorithm. Generally speaking, the more the materials realism in response to light sources, the better the outcome and, consequently, the higher the success of the engine.
Obviously I'm talking about the search of hyper realism and we should distinguish between photographic hyper-realism and hyper realism in animation - that are slightly different in details and resolution. I think you won't recall a renderman or arnold or 3delight breathtaking image, nevertheless they are widely used in CGI, but that's another story
I think the debate here has gotten really irrelevant to the reason I made my earlier statements to begin with. I have looked into Renderman as I have seen the cool images it makes in Maya and 3DS but 1)the cost is prohibitive and 2) there is no support for Carrara as far as I know. The reason I moved to Carrara over DS as I stated before was its good renderer over DS (I get it 3Delight is standards compliant). You have added all these studies and sites to your debate but you are missing the point. You do not factor in cost if I had 5 grand to through at it then I would already be using Renderman or another highend renderer, plus the support software that goes with it.
3Delight standalone is free for up to 2 cores for PC, Mac, and Linux. The current version is 10.0.50. You can download your free installer from: http://3delight.com
Kendall
And Lux is free, too. ;-)
And to bring this back around to Carrara... I wonder if there a possibility of Carrara being able to write RIBs in the "near" future? It would be possible with .duf to move "most" scenes back to DS for output to RIB or Lux, but some Carrara specific things wouldn't transfer.
Kendall
Thanks for the new serial. I'm back to hunting large complex insects!
...And really, I have enough respect for your opinion in this area, based on other stuff, that I don't need a big list of papers. But if you tell me that in fact the Renderman spec is comprehensive, and one Renderman will render a given scene the same as the next, I'll believe it. Honestly, all the detailed C++ programming stuff is so far beyond me that it wouldn't help anyway....
So I hope my semi-praise didn't diminish your desire to prove me wrong and come up with an argument to show me where I'm mistaken. Cuz I really did want to learn more about it. Really, the question is just "would all Renderman renderers, independent of what application they are in, give the same result for a given scene".
If in fact they would, I find that very interesting, cuz it means that the spec is so comprehensive that it covers everything that goes into what the final render looks like. And like I say, I don't need a bunch of references and C++ code, just some sort of agreement that yeah, given the same scene you'd get the same result.
I have an Intel i920 quad core hyperthreading. That means I render with 8 cores. Does it make any sense to retrograde to a 3delioght 2 core renderer. Won't my speed be reduced?
OTOH, an 8 core 3delight renderer will cost me $1250 (without the support). That's, er, uh... expensive.
So I hope my semi-praise didn't diminish your desire to prove me wrong and come up with an argument to show me where I'm mistaken. Cuz I really did want to learn more about it. Really, the question is just "would all Renderman renderers, independent of what application they are in, give the same result for a given scene".
If in fact they would, I find that very interesting, cuz it means that the spec is so comprehensive that it covers everything that goes into what the final render looks like. And like I say, I don't need a bunch of references and C++ code, just some sort of agreement that yeah, given the same scene you'd get the same result.
Please read the RiSpec wiki reference I gave. There are methods given that allow for different "brands" to specialize. Section 1.1 is the defined spec summary that all "Renderman Compliant" engines must be equivalent on. Section 1.2 is the section covering the "extensions" that I mentioned. Follow this with the 2 links I provided for a discussion on engines. I'll leave the rest of the research to the reader at this point as I have some RL work that I must complete.
I'm not out to prove anyone "wrong" or "right". I'm just providing information, and trying to squash misconceptions. Use of the language described for RiSpec requires a specific input and output just as any standardized programming language. Use, and implementation, of items in 1.2 is outside of Renderman and falls within "proprietary" technology.
Kendall
I have an Intel i920 quad core hyperthreading. That means I render with 8 cores. Does it make any sense to retrograde to a 3delioght 2 core renderer. Won't my speed be reduced?
OTOH, an 8 core 3delight renderer will cost me $1250 (without the support). That's, er, uh... expensive.
If using DS4 Pro x64 to access 3DL, then using the standalone would indeed result in a slowdown. If one is using the 32 bit, then the standalone would provide an increase in performance.
Certified Renderman Compliance is expensive. Think 3DL is expensive, look at the licensing for PrRenderman. DAZ should be given kudos for providing access to such an expensive engine for free. With .duf, one could say that now Carrara will have access to Renderman (and Lux) via a DS4 plugin :-). Granted that certain features won't convert, but what plugin ever works with all features?
Kendall
Just to keep it relevant. :)
I've also seen and salivated over the beautiful renders done with the un-biased renderers.......the main reason I haven't
gotten farther with any (including Octane.....I even built a computer to run it), is just having to learn the gui, creating materials, etc
which is very time consuming.
I was really looking forward to upgrading Carrara when Reality 4 Carrara seemed like a possibility, if not for 8.5, then for 9.
It seemed like a great incentive to upgrade and would attract a lot of new users without having to give it (Carrara) away. R4C seemed capable
of filling the realistic renderer job for Carrara users. I would have upgraded to get it.
Alas, the deal fell through.....at least for now. I still hope DAZ will make it worth Paolo's time to develop it. I think he's still willing if they
would simply give him a break on the broker's fees. He's amazingly patient, talented, and must drink pots of espresso.
In the mean time, LuxRender seems like the best game in town ...it
can use the CPU or GPU depending on which graphics card you have, will use all available cores on Auto-Detect, or use only the number
you let it, and last but not least, it's FREE. ;)