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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
As someone who has used PRMan in production on multiple films, I would love to see it come to DS as it kicks the pants off of 3Delight. Also keep in mind that they are also bundling in RenderManStudio which includes a maya plugin and Slim (shader authoring UI)...for free. A generous deal and one that is going to put the squeeze on some other renderers. Unfortunately, I have not seen a release from 3Delight for ages now so it seems Daz will need to do....something.
Linux is indeed easier to use but configuring the render node is done from the command-line and that has not changed much. Getting familiar with the command-line is one of the most useful skills to acquire. It's a tremendous time saver and it's simply hard to beat in many automation tasks.
If you use the Google App Engine, which is just point and click in the browser, you can get an 8-core rendernode set in minutes and there is not installation of the OS, Google does all the heavy lifting.
Regardless of cost, people stick with what they know. Those high-end clients that use 3DL will continue to use 3DL, those who use PRMan will continue to use PRMan. There is much, much more to the choice of rendering engine that just procurement cost. Both are RiSpec, which means that they must have a base level of compatibility and output. It is the non-RiSpec abilities that sets the engines apart. Things like support software, plugins, specialized shading extensions, and other things. If a Studio has a large library of tools designed for one or the other, the costs to switch are prohibitive. Losing time to re-code to another engine's quirks can cost precious time, and in most cases, time is not on the side of replicating work that has already be done and tested.
Kendall
edited and removed by user
I don't see that as the best solution. When we use physics-based renderers, like LuxRender, we have a whole new series of materials and properties that are not present in the Studio UI. I have analyzed this issue for a long time, four year now, and the artist needs to have a fully-featured material editor that is dedicated to the task at hand.
The next version of Reality provides support for all the textures types, including procedurals, supported by LuxRender. It allows the artist to connect all those textures without using nodes, and to nest all those connections to any limit.
You need a dedicated UI for that, and that is how Reality has been structured. Trying to fit everything inside the UI of Studio is going to make things crowded and it will lead to UI compromises that are not serving the artist well.
What is needed is a better integration with the renderer and that is coming with LuxRender 2.0.
Cheers.
I don't see that as the best solution. When we use physics-based renderers, like LuxRender, we have a whole new series of materials and properties that are not present in the Studio UI. I have analyzed this issue for a long time, four year now, and the artist needs to have a fully-featured material editor that is dedicated to the task at hand.
The next version of Reality provides support for all the textures types, including procedurals, supported by LuxRender. It allows the artist to connect all those textures without using nodes, and to nest all those connections to any limit.
You need a dedicated UI for that, and that is how Reality has been structured. Trying to fit everything inside the UI of Studio is going to make things crowded and it will lead to UI compromises that are not serving the artist well.
What is needed is a better integration with the renderer and that is coming with LuxRender 2.0.
Cheers.
Interesting Paolo, can't wait to see next Reality version coming in. So... if I guess it right, is it going to be a standalone application, and not a plugin anymore?
edited and removed by user
Thank you.
Reality is now a stand-alone application and a plugin. The plugin part runs inside Studio as before, just doing more. It is responsible for communicating with Studio, gathering the geometry and material information.
The Reality UI, the material editor, light editor and everything that is used by the artist, is a stand-alone app. The two sides of Reality communicate in real time and seamlessly. If you change a material and close Reality there is no need to save anything, everything is saved automatically in the Studio scene. When you save the Studio scene the Reality data is saved as well. Just like before, but now with a full app at the service of the artist, which makes the UI more powerful, while still retaining the same look and feel of Reality 2.
Reality 2 artists will be right at home, it just expands the UI to levels that were not possible before.
Cheers.
Please remember that this is a thread posted to talk about the RenderMan free non-commercial version, not a thread to promote other programs. Thankyou
If you refer to the camera field of view and matching the DS camera with another renderer then I don't see the problem. Reality with LuxRender has been pixel-accurate with the DS camera since version 1.0, released four years ago.
I agree that the camera in DS could provide more features to map it closer to a real camera. The same is in Poser. It was the same in Blender for a long time too. All these cameras basically have a hard-coded film-plane size. I think I remember that for Blender is was 32mm. When it comes to convert the FOV from Studio it has its own size, which is different from Poser. That's why, when you import a Poser scene into Studio, a 60mm camera in Studio looks different from a 60mm camera in Poser.
But, for what is my experience, the only issue in exporting to a different renderer is that the camera frame matches what the user sees.
Cheers.
duplicate entry.
can be deleted.
duplicate entry.
can be deleted.
duplicate entry
can be deleted
I edited my other posts in this thread because they are not anymore relevant and provide a quick summary in this post.
I appologize for the part I took in taking the discussion away from the original focus on RenderMan.
- - -
I did post in this thread because I was under the impression that the arrival of the "Free Non-Commercial RenderMan" could be an opportunity to add additional functionality to DAZ studio that provide more options for plugin developers to make use of the shared elements like the OpenGL viewport.
I am still under the impression that the current way the OpenGL viewport works is based only on the needs of 3Delight.
This currently limits the way render engine plugins can implement their render specific functionality.
Instead of focusing on one render engine a future version of DAZ Studio could provide support for RenderMan, Luxrender and OctaneRender equaly.
The basic idea was to add additional presets to the DAZ Studio OpenGL viewport and the interface that can be toggled based on the render engine plugin the user selects.
Example:
A viewport preset could be added that crops the viewport based on a standard 3x2 aspect ratio 35mm sensor / film size.
Such a preset would make it possible to better composite images created in DAZ studio with images created in other 3D software and real photocameras.
Each render engine plugin might benefit from such presets that add options to the OpenGL viewport and the DAZ camera settings that are specific to the used render engine.
By the time the "Free Non-Commercial Renderman" plugin is ready some solutions could allready have been worked out.
I hoped that there could be some interest by plugin developers to find solutions together in cooperation with DAZ that will benefit all DAZ Studio users.
Nevertheless it seems that currently there is no such common interest.
This thread in hindsight really seems the wrong place to discuss those ideas.
Therefore I assume for now everything will stay as it is and future plugin developers will face the same challenges on their own.
- - -
I edited and removed any disrupting entries because they do not anymore serve any purpose.
Moderators / Admins feel free to delete my edited posts in this thread.
Before asking for "advanced support" for PRMan from DS developers, we should probably be asking for "some extra basic support" for 3Delight. At least, in the form of less Spartan documentation for "scripted renderer" and rendertime scripts for individual shaders (a lot of very basic things like setting shading rate per surface is "hidden" from an average user - and if it weren't, say, for Omnifreaker's shaders, a lot of other basic things would be "hidden" as well). I feel that the fact of this being "arcane knowledge" stifles the community.
Anyway, I hope everyone here understands that PRMan won't be a "make art" button, right? There will still be a learning curve, but it won't be as steep for serious 3Delight users - many concepts are transferable between Renderman-compliant renderers.
All in all, if someone's here planning to write some commercial software for perfecting the DS-PRMan integration, I suggest it could take the form of a standalone specialised RIB editor. A convenient GUI to assign precompiled PRMan shaders (manually and automagically), set RiOptions and RiAttributes (the latter not only global, but per-surface, etc), use RiIlluminate easily, etc. Actually this could be handy not only for PRMan integration, but for easier work with 3Deight as well.
For a hobbyist, the most tangible advantage of PRMan over 3Delight would be not simply PRMan's new bidirectional pathtracer or something; it's the "physically plausible" shader library shipping with it. Someone could in theory make a lot of money in the hobbyist market by writing a comparable library for 3Delight as-built-into-DS (3Delight is capable of quite a lot these days...) - but I'm not sure that, say, co-shaders would be easy to implement within DS.
I think the free Renderman offer from Pixar is great, but I'm not so sure many will figure out how to use it, even with docs and training. Renderman Studio and Slim being included is intriguing, but I don't own and probably will never be able to afford Maya, unless I did the subscription thing, but that's still not affordable for me.
I'm all for getting more info out for the Scripted Renderer using 3Delight in Studio. It keeps us in Studio and we get some of the more advanced 3Delight features. Kettu's script we've been playing with in another thread shows how powerful the new version of 3Delight's raytracer is in Studio. I actually think with some more tweaking, I'll be able to render animation easily with no longer any big penalty for using transmaps! And she figured out how to do GI better and faster in the Scripted Renderer!
Check out that thread. http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/21611/P495/#642793
Read from there through the end as tweaks and tips have been posted.
And for 4K, Livanchene, remember that is pretty processor intensive for whatever you are using, and you have to keep in mind 4K pro level requires around 4GB of data storage per minute. I don't think many hobbyists or semi pro folks can afford that yet. I think it's down the road a way for many people, and it's just getting pushed by the manufacturers right now to the folks always on the lookout for the latest cool thing. Lots of folks are still leaning to keeping 2K or so, 1920 x 1080, or even 1280 x 720, as many people can not tell the difference. Processors have leveled off around 4Ghz and more cores will have to be the answer, or more GPU rendering, but many folks won't be able to afford the GPUs that can do it or maybe more importantly, the electric bills! The big thing to keep an eye on is contrast and color detail. If you have that, most folks will never know what they are viewing. 4K looks nice in stores until they show too crisp of details... then it doesn't look good. I was in Best Buy looking at their top end units with the special 4K feed and noticed that. It's something to be aware of and watch out for. Softer is often better and more film like. Some big time Hollywood directors are pushing the studios to keep using film at least for capture because they are not in love with 4K yet and it's keeping Kodak's one remaining motion picture film factory in business.
You are completely right and that is the same for other renderers line LuxRender. It's the task of programs like Reality to interface the two softwares together in a way that is usable by the artist.
The deal with this announcement is that Renderman used to be inaccessible for most people and now it will be very accessible. So now we have the chance to bring that kind of power to the masses, which is a very nice option.
..Kevin, thank you.
Being one of those ho cannot afford a system 32, or 48 CPU cores (let alone even 16) and/or high end GPU (like a Quadro K6000) 4K will pretty much be out of reach unless, as I have quipped before, I win the lotto. My 8 core (thread) 12GB system may be "dated" with all the 32 and 64 GB out there these days, but it still does the job I need and within a reasonable amount of time (as long as I don't use GI very much).
Again, I approach 3D CG from a painter's rather than photographer's/filmmaker's POV as that is where my background is. I relate better to "Canvas Size" (used in most 2D applications) and perspective, as opposed to Film Size, F Stop, and Focal Length. I use DOF very sparingly as when I painted, I didn't blur my backgrounds to bring out the main characters, instead, I used subtle differences/contrasts in light and shadow (also similar to theatrical lighting). I've dabbled with photography, but I still let my eye, not the numbers, determine what would make a good shot and what wouldn't. Interestingly, some of the best shots I've taken were with an old Box camera.
To achieve many of the effects in my scenes I tend to rely more on "cinematic/theatrical" rather than "realistic" lighting. Yes, it may not be "physically correct" but it works, and doesn't take days to render.
I have been playing around a bit with scripted rendering but have a ways to go as I am not "script savvy" and must rely on what prewritten scripts are available. One of the shortcomings I have seen is that it doesn't seem to work with specialised effects cameras like AoA's Atmospheric Camera meaning I will have to rely on the more memory intensive "in scene" effects (like UberVolume) or a lot of painstaking layered rendering, masking, and postwork to achieve the same desired result I can perform pretty much in a single render pass with the standard Daz 3DL.
As the Renderman offer is free, there is no money involved so it would be foolish not to give it a try particularly if has the potential improve the quality and process. If it doesn't work for me, I'm out nothing but a bit of time.
Paolo, it is good news indeed that more will now have access to one of the best render engines on the planet.
You're welcome, Kyoto Kid!
Yep, you don't need fancy stuff to make art. Roll with what you have. You'll be alright.
There was an old newspaper photographer decades ago (I can't think of his name), who I think shot with just a press rangefinder camera. He never worried about settings, he just was concerned with getting the shot and composition at the most. He took some great photos.
My mom took a great picture of all us kids many years ago with a Kodak brownie and that picture elicits more positive comments. That shows content can be more important than whiz bang. She had it composed nicely and the sun was at a good angle.
Kettu's script saves boatloads of time on GI, and with transmaps, and makes 3Delight zip right along if you have the settings set modestly. It is worth trying and I'm no coding whiz. You will need to use Notepad++ instead of regular Notepad as it does something to the script. She is very helpful and it's not that complicated at all. Fake nighttime renders absolutely fly! I was trying those this afternoon.
And Renderman should run just fine on your system, so that won't be a worry either.
...thanks. With all this talk of GI, and physically correct lighting, y'know, I still prefer the quality of good old LDP/LDP2. Never got the new version of the plugin as it became far too technical with all the layering and postwork you need to do.
I have Win7 so not sure if it has notepad++. Also does that mean the script still needs to be "edited"? As I mentioned, not very up on that kind of stuff, I need something I can just plug in and go with.
Here's the part of the thread where she explains some more and the link to the free Notepad++ program. Windows only has the basic Notepad.
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/21611/P570/#650631
Just a little editing, mostly copy and paste and changing some of the defaults. You may also have to give yourself permission to access the file area you are working in if everything is in Program Files, even if you are already in Admin mode.
Currently, volume effects are not supported by the 3Delight "pure" raytracer at all (it also means you can´t get them in "progressive" mode because it also uses the raytrace hider). This should be fixed, given some time (I'm keeping an eye on the free version development). And then give DS devs some time to integrate the new version that will support them.
So if you want volumes and are happy with "oldschool" lighting, and especially if you are not using raytraced shadows or AO with multilayered transparencies (think most hair models), REYES (techinically hybrid, but anyway, the default hider) is still your best bet.
TL;DR: the "pure" raytracer vastly outperforms the default hider in all the raytracing tasks, but as it's still a cutting-edge work in progress, not every specialised feature is supported yet.
If you want faster GI, you could just call the GI cache, but not the raytracer. Feel free to ask stuff in the 3Delight thread Kevin links to, so as not to hijack this one (Kevin - thank you for your kind words!).
...All in all, the "oldschool" workflow should be fairly similar between 3Delight and PRMan. Not sure which would outperform which, though.
Currently, volume effects are not supported by the 3Delight "pure" raytracer at all .
Raytracing volume work. Problem is AOA's shader.
Try with omnifreaker's ubervolume
Interior volumes do work with our version? Cool! Atmospheres not supported, then (not even basic fog - at least, I didn´t manage to get it to work). Some time ago it was all volumes, apparently. Good to know!
Everything works. Atmosphere, interior, and whatever. See the attached testscene
Hmmmm let's talk in the 3Delight thread.
[...moved to 3Delight thread]
Has this been released yet? I signed up for it and received a confirmation reply, but nothing since.
...same here.
Just received this email this morning:
http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=3c3aeb982758865db63ad4334&id=29f7a5177f&e=bf13faa32d