Slashdot Mirror
Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan
jones_supa writes: A year ago, animation studio Pixar promised its RenderMan animation and rendering suite would eventually become free for non-commercial use. This was originally scheduled to happen in the SIGGRAPH 2014 computer graphics conference, but things got delayed. Nevertheless, today Pixar is releasing the free version into the wild. Free, non-commercial RenderMan can be used for research, education, evaluation, plug-in development, and any personal projects that do not generate commercial profits. This version is fully featured, without a watermark or any kind of artificial limits. Featuring Pixar's new RIS technology, RenderMan delivers extremely fast global illumination and interactive shading and lighting for artists. The software is available for Mac, Linux, and Windows. In conjunction with the release, Pixar has also launched a new RenderMan Community site where users can exchange knowledge and resources, showcase their own work, share assets such as shaders and scripts, and learn about RenderMan from tutorials.
to make great stuff so why did we need Pixar's stuff to get charged/sued afterwards?
Not seeing the downside yet. You want to cultivate a pool of bright, dedicated people to work for you one day. You give them a tool - free of charge - for them to play with, develop their skills, maybe use the tool in ways no-one anticipated, let their creativity run free, maybe one of them will produce a product you'd be prepared to buy or license from them, and then offer them a job. Can you point me to a loser in this deal? It's not like a free software advocate, i.e. a Blender user, couldn't produce an impressive CV to show the hirers at Pixar, right? When you have to choose between 2 applicants of equal merit EXCEPT one them knows how to use your tools, and the other doesn't, who do you choose? Who do you choose when the Blender user is *slightly* better than the Renderman user? Of course, someone *really* dedicated will have skills in both packages.
Apple do it. Microsoft do it - although their motivation is less to get you to work for them, than it is to advocate the purchase of their software, wherever you work. There is (or should be) no legal reason that schools can't install free alternatives (and some do just that). They make their decisions based on a lot of factors - the perceived market for their students' skills, the bias of selection committees, ease of use, and outright bribery in some cases - but free software needs to compete on more than its merits, unfortunately.
Show me an easy installation package (LibreOffice ticks that box), a series of relevant templates that meets the teachers' needs (not sure, haven't seen any, yet), and interoperability, and I'll advocate free software. Sadly, it misses out badly on the third criteria. Fortunately, MSOffice since 2007 has been less usable than before, and the free alternatives have become more attractive. I've had customers select LibreOffice over MSOffice 2010/2013 when upgrading, because they just want the old interface (and they've "lost" the Office 2003 installation disc).
All that said, I'm going to try Renderman.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Yes, the FAA: Don't post drone videos on Youtube Any more questions?
Also don't shoot video from upper balconies, GoPro headbands while skateboarding 'Ollies' in the air, while hanging from chandeliers, cliffs, standing on the transparent tourist platform atop the Eiffel Tower, from tethered balloons, while being shot from a cannon, while head-butting a ram, riding glass elevators, or suspended from suspenderences such as but not limited to rope or chain, or if you are tall, or if the subject is short.
These distinct camera angles strongly suggest drone use to busy compliance officers, who have been judicially empowered to employ the same 'presumption of use', 'intent to distribute' arguments that have made the War On Drugs the successful endeavor it is today. If your content is flagged, you will be pressed to supply proof that a drone was not present, and unmarked drones may appear next to your your house and photographs taken. Drawing on the 'admissibility loophole' that has made the partnership between Intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement the successful endeavor it is today, where the fact of warrantless, illegal surveillance need not be disclosed, these photos may be presented to Judge and Jury without comment or disclosure of origin.
To avoid unnecessary legal hassle, do not even post footage of model environments such as Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Even obvious depth-of-field artifacts may be targeted by zealous prosecutors if they allege the use of drones in pan-tilt photography. Due to the perceived nature of building giant models and the fact that bugs were in it, the movie "Bugs' Life" is exempt. There is also a blanket exemption for drone footage of cats, or drones that ARE cats.
Fortunately for us... Google has announced they have developed an AI program that detects the use of drone footage with 99% accuracy.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
You don't pay money for it. Outside the FOSS world, when talking about products, "free" has a particular meaning which this satisfies perfectly.
The only thing you should be angry with is your understanding of the world.
As if there weren't a bunch of free tools already?
Dammit, get on the phone and tell them we already have enough!
I think anyone serious about making money is going to be either invested in a proper professional package,
Perhaps people who don't know if they are serious might find out if they are? Perhaps creativity can come from noobs. I'll note that the 3-D animation output these days is starting to look a little self similar.
I've done 3-D work since the frame buffer days of Imagine and Video Toaster/Lightwave on the Amiga to Lightwave on OSX, and am now switched to Maya. All different interfaces. There is a real interest in knowing the software package you might use. My switch to Maya has been a bit painful, having to unlearn all those years of Lightwave. I'm still much faster in Lightwave. The learning curve is very steep with 3-D, and remains steep
So why on earth would a company release a free version of their software? Given the differences between interfaces, you just aren't going to make that switch in 5 minutes.
If you are a Blender user, you'd better be working for a Blender house, or be independent.
So Pixar needs to be condemned for releasing a free version of their software, allowing people to learn and use it.? There is no doubt that they really want people to use Youtube, so they can sneak a peek at the results. Next thing you know, a person who does good work is offered a job. Then they settle in very quickly. Why? Because they already know the software.
Only on Slashdot, will people turn that into some sort of bad thing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, it is not free enough to be useful.
Define useful. Is it useful to a young person who might like to experiment to see if 3-D work is for them?
hint (yes)
Is it useful to a student who is in a college class oriented to 3-D.
hint (yes)
Is it useful to someone who might be wanting to work for Pixar?
hint (yes)
Is it useful to someone who just wants to dabble?
hint (yes)
Is it useful for a commercial enterprise that wants to produce 3-D work?
hint (not so much)
Then again, a commercial enterprise that wants to produce 3-D work will almost certainly have a software suite already in mind, because that's what they were planning on using. 3-D work is not like hiring an accountant out of college and having them use excel, just like every other accountant everywhere else.
Your points, while at some level correct, are completely meaningless.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.