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.
Beer?
you should lick suck stroke and gently massage a great big NIGGER PENIS!
This is nothing more than a press release for some software. It's literally an ad for something made by Pixar published on Pixar's website.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
So, say you make a video and post it to Youtube. Youtube generates advertising revenue by serving up ads to viewers of your video, so, it's for commercial profit now and violates the agreement?
to make great stuff so why did we need Pixar's stuff to get charged/sued afterwards?
Non-commercial use? How the fuck is that "free"?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I'd like to learn a 3D tool just for own self learning, I'd like to be able to add 3D animations to my videos, I'd like to be able to make 3D models using 3D printers etc.
I learned Photoshop, Sony Vegas, Xara and other graphic tools and am pretty proficient, but these are all 2D world. I don't know where to start with 3D. I once installed Blender but its all unfriendly as f*** with every action done its own way. I think that is for the Blender faithful only, I feared I'd be tainted by its quirkiness if I ever got into it, and I'd forget how a mouse is supposed to work.
So I see Maya 3D has a free download, and Renderman has a free download, and Renderman doesn't need Maya, (does Maya need renderman to render decent images?), and I see that these days decent 3D can be done even in the web browser (e.g. http://kottke.org/15/03/the-algorithmic-sea ), and I need a decent understanding of 3D to make 3D models that don't suck and that 3D printers are actually getting quite good.
What apps do I get?
What course do I take?
Which formats do I need for 3D printers?
Do the same packages cover both 3D for printer and 3D for animation? If not why is the main one in each field.
Best printer in the sub $5k range for those tools?
Base level PC CUDA cores needed etc.?
Physics how? including in the package? How to animate it.
What else?
Why is it released for "non commercial use", why does it matter to Pixar if it gets used in "perrsonal projects that do not generate commercial profits"? Does it stop RenderMan working for Pixar if a human or a commercial entity makes money from using it?
No.
It's just the accountant mindset: "If someone else is making money off our work, then they're STEALING FROM US!!!!".
It keeps working for you if someone makes money off it, guys. It still solves your necessary problem. If RenderMan didn't exist, you wouldn't have a job, and Pixar would not exist. So even if everyone else is "leeching" form your work, you still get to have Pixar do what it does and make money.
Moreover, since what you produce is protected by copyright, even if Dreamworks got a free rendering studio off your work and therefore could produce animated pictures with fewer costs than you, your work that you sell in competition with them (the movies) cannot be copied, and that's the only place you're making money. What the hell does it matter that Dreamworks are saving the salaries of 10 programmers writing their rendering software when they still have to pay the salaries of 100's of others to make their movie, just like you? Given that what you want done changes, you'd still be ahead if they didn't have programmers modifying your software given to them. If you open sourced via BSD even, so they could have programmers making RenderMan suit their movie needs and not share back the changes to you, they're still behind and now having to pay most of the programmer time they cut out by using your work as a shortcut.
And if it were open source and GPLv3, they wouldn't be able to add new things to RenderMan and share their results with sibling companies without sharing the code itself. It would need to be v3 so that competition can't patent the code actions and ban you from using your software.GPLing would be of limited use here, however, because the code isn't being sold to anyone therefore they could update it and keep it secret as long as they only used it with themselves, not any other legal entity.
So why is the code released with a non-commercial license? Given that so much now is made "commercial" when it isn't in any shape way or form a commercial venture, just so that criminal claims and DMCA notices can be made against Youtubers, filesharers and blog owners that don't pay the danegeld, the commercial use could be easily stretched by the compliant courts to include "advertising you can use renderman, leading to work, therefore profit!".
Just let people use it.
It's no skin (or only a few pimpled skin cells) off your nose if some company makes a shitton of money off "your work", RenderMan enables you to do your actual work, and others doing the same doesn't stop that happening.
I want it ALL and I want it FREE and I want it NOW and I deserve the SOURCE (and yet, if they hadn't released it for anyone who wants to play with it, at no charge as long as they don't use it to make money, we wouldn't even be having this discussion).
In contrast to companies like Adobe that charge ridiculously exorbitant fees even for students and home hobbyists to use their tools to learn on, I'd say this sort of thing is a big step in the right direction even if it's not the miraculous free-everything-utopia.
Just curious, what are the minimum hardware specs to use those programs decently? I suspect for professional video 90% of cost is the hardware, not the software.
For anyone hoping to jump straight in with the same tools that the pros use, note that this RenderMan is just the rendering engine, not a GUI for modelling.
You'll still need something like Maya or Katana to do the modelling in and then you use RenderMan for the final renders of your scene.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
I'll wait for RenderWoman.
And you're all "I WANT ALL YOUR MONEY!!! DON'T DO WORK UNLESS I PROFIT FROM IT!!!"
What part of my post did you read inside your own head to make such a balls-up of understanding it?
Pixar aren't a software company. The software they wrote makes them able to make movies. Anyone else using it doesn't stop them from making money from their own movies they created with their software.
What part of that did you not bother reading so that you could rave against the idiocy of anal rententive profit fear? OMG! Someone made money! I MUST have been cheated!!!
But i guess that will only happen once it's obsolete and only of historical interest.
And how much does it cost to get it?
That, really, is the problem here: just because you COULD make money, and just because someone else COULD make money from it doesn't mean you have to make money from it.
Pixar selling this "creates jobs" in the same way as vandals and thieves create jobs undoing their activities. They probably lose more in free donuts and a video room than they gain in software sales. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A SOFTWARE COMPANY.
I note that even the most reasonable "But..." doesn't actually rebut the reasons I gave why it isn't necessary to make it non-restrictive, even BSD. It's all defending why they made the choice, not questioning whether the choice was necessary. And the "Why?" I ask is why was the choice necessary.
I would be better, that Pixar made TOY STORY 4 =)
I see a lot of whining, but I think this is great. For a GUI, use the free edition of Maya. I'm sure there will be a way to get scenes out of Blender. For the hobbyist or student, this is the best news out of Pixar since Typestry. Thanks, Pixar!
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>
Blender was the GIMP of rendering software anyway. Like all open sores software it fucking SUCKED, so it will be good to have a much nicer free alternative to that shit-ware.
Google has announced they have developed an AI program that detects the use of drone footage with 99% accuracy.
The pedant in me must know: you're referring to false-negatives, right?
He went to Nvidia to develop Gelato, and by 2008 Nvidia decided to drop all support to the software
The software - Gelato Pro - can be downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/200...
> Pixar's RenderMan animation and rendering suite
How does that thing compare to MMD?
What if I told you...
The Pixar movies have all just been elongated tech demo features of their Rendering Software's capabilities? The fact that they made some side money off the public was just done to show the type of ROI that Movie Houses could have with proper use of these tools developed by Pixar. The Sequels? That was to showcase that assets created with older tools are still compatible with the updated ones.
Renderman release the " Kitten" demo circa 1993 which was one of the examples that moved SteveJobs to buy it in the first place. This is history, creation myth and people can get their hands on it.
I think if you put together large enough sample of work done with particular rendered/engine, one might become able to spot something common for particular renderer*. With game engines this can be much more easy to notice as there's more than just rendering involved. I imagine with this type of high end product the difference to the competition could be much harder to notice and maybe impossible without that large sample of work to glance at once side by side.
For a start, they don't have to support anyone who hasn't paid. So "supporting a tool" is wrong, it's not a reason. And I already explained that "making" is a nonsense excuse too: they made the software so they could do their REAL job: make movies. Shit, don't you guys listen to anything outside your own head?
And lastly an analogy is absolutely fine. Just because you wanted to find a problem you don't get to make one up. The analogy was "selling software you need anyway for yourself is fake job creation, just like the broken window fallacy". But you don't step outside your own head for anything, do you? That's why you don't understand my mindset: you don't want to and therefore don't think.
As Dave420 does a "Run, Forrest: RUN" from this http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which always serves to shut that little "ne'er-do-well" worm's mouth every time.
The post above it is only a single example of what I've ignored from that little do-nothing dope smoking douche's trolling & his trolling? Nearly every post he makes (check his post history it verifies my words).
IF that doesn't do it? See "how well liked" douchebag Dave420 is here then (others do the talking for me) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & douchebag Dave420 brings it on himself.
By the way - which sockpuppet of Dave420's are you? Nobody in their right mind that's a decent person would stick up for a little fuckwad like him.
APK
P.S.=> Kheldan's absolutely RIGHT about that little dickweed, only thing he doesn't seem to understand is, Dave420's a little worm that still hasn't had his head beat in good is all - that's only a matter of time with flaccid worms like him though. Oh, & by the way? See what sexconker said about my FINALLY getting to serve Dave420 a little of what he dishes out here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... so kindly GO FUCK YOURSELF worm, ok? apk
I find it somewhat unethical for them to make the claim that they have any right to control any product entity made with their software. Either make it free or don't, but what I make is what I make and I'll do with it what I please. Guess I'll stick with Blender.
The pedant in me must know: you're referring to false-negatives, right?
The pendant in me says, just leave it dangling.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Surely a professional is going to be able to pick up how to use different software quickly enough that's it's going to make little difference in the long run which one they started with?