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.
Sure, as long as you don't re-sell the beer or use it somehow to make money (eg: in-house software for corp).
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?
...where have you been the last six years?
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
to make great stuff so why did we need Pixar's stuff to get charged/sued afterwards?
Yes, but it's also an opportunity for many nerds to learn 3D rendering using a professional tool, for free.
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?
So, you can drink all you want, but you need to hold it in.
You have to pay for it whenever you 'go'.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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
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.
Then what would you like to talk about that doesn't involve mentioning any products at all? If you go to a website that talks about "News for nerds, stuff that matters" then you are going to find that the stuff that matters to nerds will often be products that people sell (or in this case, give away). We can't all be MacGyver building our own supercomputers from coconut shells and earwax.
If a story doesn't interest you, or you think that it is just blatant consumerism, then feel free to go do something else like watch another inspirational episode of MacGyver from the MacGyver Complete Series box set, available at a cheap price and with free shipping at Amazon.
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?
It requires a big team of senior engineers in mathematics and computer science to create and support something like RenderMan, so it's not unreasonable that they ask money for it.
The idea is probably that hobbyists (many of whom wouldn't have enough spare money to buy it anyway) can get familiar with the software, and then Pixar can sell the software to commercial use where the actual bucks are made. For a fully commercial tool I see this being a pretty nice deal.
Even then the real license costs just $495 per seat, which is cheap. You can easily recoup that investment.
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
I'll wait for RenderWoman.
It requires a big team of senior engineers in mathematics and computer science to create and support something like RenderMan
RenderMan is pretty nice, but check out Slender Man.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
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"?
Erm... maybe because Pixar make good money by selling RenderMan to the makers of films like Titanic, Star Wars I-III and the Lord of the Rings. RenderMan is the single most important rendering package in Hollywood at the moment, it would be a loss of millions.
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.
If RenderMan existed only to produce the kind of visuals you see in Pixar productions, it would be a much smaller and simpler package. Pixar doesn't do photo-realistic giant space-monsters stomping on green-screen live actors... but RenderMan does.
Pixar is not just a "cartoon studio" -- Pixar has been pioneering software rendering techniques for decades, and has always employed many of the very top people in the 3D field. Its original aim was always special effects -- feature film production was something that came along later.
If the law was changed to force them to choose between producing their own films or acting as a special effects supplier to other studios, they'd drop the in-house animation in a second. Notice how Disney are doing more and more 3D work under the Disney banner rather than Pixar (Tangled, Wreck it Ralph, Frozen). Now I don't know for sure, but I suspect the software they used was... RenderMan.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
But i guess that will only happen once it's obsolete and only of historical interest.
I would be better, that Pixar made TOY STORY 4 =)
Lighten up, Francis.
News for nerds. Stuff that matters. This is news. It matters.
Don't be such a tool. It's interesting software released free of charge on multiple platforms that enables a lot of creativity for interested nerds. If it wasn't mentioned you'd be posting complaining that it wasn't mentioned. Pull your head in or go back to editing your BeOS vim patch.
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>
What? They are making and supporting a tool used to create and you're comparing them to vandals a thieves? Are you asking why they want to make money? Are you suggesting they change business models?
I can't understand your mindset.
The free version is limited in that it cannot be connected to other renderman nodes - no networked rendering
Erm... maybe because Pixar make good money by selling RenderMan to the makers of films like Titanic, Star Wars I-III and the Lord of the Rings.
IIRC, Industrial Light & Magic has a perpetual licence to use PRMan for free. Pixar, you may recall, used to be part of Lucasfilm. Of course, now Disney owns both.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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?
During the industrial revolution, manufacturers invented wonderful machines to make their factories more efficient, thus making it easier to produce goods at a competitive price-point. If they gave away the plans to their machines, they would still be able to keep doing what they were doing... but they would lose their price advantage, so they kept the designs to themselves. This was a loss to society, and thus was the "patent" born. By protecting the invention and allowing the inventor to charge for its use, it incentivised and rewarded the sharing of information.
Now replace "machines" with "software", "factories" with "3D animation and special effects studios" and you have an analogous situation to here. If Pixar kept RenderMan in-house, they could use it as a commercial advantage in bidding for special effects work -- "we're better and quicker than anyone else". By selling the software, they make more money than they lose from the studio work side, and the software is available to those who need it. It's a win-win situation.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Even then the real license costs just $495 per seat, which is cheap. You can easily recoup that investment.
It used to cost a lot more than that, but if you consider the time you need to invest into learning working with it to get serious results, the money seems almost like a minor issue.
Ezekiel 23:20
I didn't know about the perpetual license -- thanks.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
So, you can drink all you want, but you need to hold it in.
You have to pay for it whenever you 'go'.
Jesus Christ in a Tesla S, then don't use the software. There are other programs out there. You might not like the price.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
If a story doesn't interest you, or you think that it is just blatant consumerism, then feel free to go do something else like watch another inspirational episode of MacGyver
And lest we forget, Slashdot has tools that will let you custom tailor what you see, so people who think that Slashdot should only be allowed to show topics that they think should be shown can modify what they see, and be forever happy
Maybe gain enough extra time to watch MacGuyver and Three's Company.
Hard to imagine that somehow a software package - for free to boot - would ever be considered by anyone here as not appropriate for Slashdot.
We should direct those tools to Yahoo.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's also not true.
I believe Blender is still free.
And, if you don't mind renting your software and do the Adobe CC thing, After Effects includes Cinema 4D Lite which is pretty powerful and included in the price.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I believe Blender is still free.
And, if you don't mind renting your software and do the Adobe CC thing, After Effects includes Cinema 4D Lite which is pretty powerful and included in the price.
If you are going to learn 3-D animation and try to make money from it, you should use the software your employer uses. If you are independent, you use whatever trips your trigger.
Where I was at, we used Lightwave. Using Blender would have prepared me to do what?
I'm trying out Maya now, I'll dl RenderMan when I get the chance. I'm independent how, and can try out what I like. Don't like free shit? Don't use it, You should be complaining about that goddamn Blender program while you are at it. Y'all are just proving that in the new Slashdot, you can't give something away without most of ya bitching about it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Completely disagree. Well not completely because yes it is a press release for software. But it is free for me to play with and nobody is forcing me to try it out. So all good as far as I'm concerned and I will try it out because it sounds cool.
Move along and ignore this type of item if you disagree but I appreciate hearing about it here.
I don't think it is a matter of anyone complaining about anything being FREE so much as people complaining about the rules and restraints associated with it.
Blender being open source and free to use for most anything, even commercial, vs the Pixar product that is "free", but only if you don't try to make any money with any creations YOU make from it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
FREE so much as people complaining about the rules and restraints associated with it.
To be certain, there is a vested interest here on their part. People will learn how to use their software, and may be employment opportunities later on. So we really need to send the entire company to gitmo, maybe attach batteries to their nuts then dump them in Northern Iraq with "Allah sucks" written on their T-Shirts so that ISUL lops thei rnoggins off? Would that be a proper punisment for their perfidy?
So if is so very important that you have no restrictions, then by all means use Blender.
But lets remove the cancer of humanity Pixar from the equation.
Let's say I run a 3-D animation house using Lightwave - which isn't all that far off, because I used Lightwave pretty often at work.
Now I need some extra animators. Two people come in. One works in Lightwave, one works in Blender. Both appear about the same in all other aspects.
Who do I hire?
As I noted before, I've worked in 3-D animations since the early 90's. The paramount issue is the software. The learning curve is so steep that there has to be a really good reason to switch software, like they don't make it any more, or it's too hard to find models over a long period of time. Which is why after I left Imagine, I went with Lightwave and hung out there for a long, long time.
Which brings me to the answer. I'd hire the Lightwage person.
Even if the Blender person was somewhat better , I'd hire the Lightwave person. If the Blender person was a Savant, I might hire them as an intern, of even but them a copy of my particular program, but 3-D work does not tend to suffer any deadline slippage, so you have to have the work done on time. Learnig curve?
This perfidy of RenderMan gives me even more impetus to learn Maya, as it is one of the programs that is compatable with RenderMan.
And if I for some reason take on a commercial job, I have other rendering options.
I'm off to download it now, so whine away, this is about as Win- Win a situation as I can think of.....
Well maybe free beer is better, as long as it is an acceptable brew, served at the right temperature, in a proper glass, and delivered and served by a cute Dirndl Girl. (or Guy in Lederhosen for the folks who prefer that)
Otherwise screw that shit, goddamnd criminal beer makers....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Blender being open source and free to use for most anything, even commercial, vs the Pixar product that is "free", but only if you don't try to make any money with any creations YOU make from it.
Why are you comparing Blender and Renderman? It's apples and oranges, they aren't even the same kind of tool!
Renderman is now free of charge for non-commercial use, i.e. for evaluating it, creating your showreel or learning it so that when you move into the commercial space you are familiar with the industry tools. If these terms and limitations confuse you or upset you then just ignore this announcement and continue using something like POVRay or BMRT.
As if there weren't a bunch of free tools already?
There are some but few of industry quality so the defacto in the industry for the most part is Renderman.
I think anyone serious about making money is going to be either invested in a proper professional package, or has devoted to Blender et al.
Blender? How is Blender in any way an alternative or competitor to Renderman?
If Pixar wants some space here, it's simply because they want young talent to use their stuff.
Of course it is, that's why it's for non-commercial use. It's so you can learn a professional tool without having to pay for it when you aren't going to use it to make any money.
I guess the end result is, if you are young and want to maybe work for Pixar someday, learn this software, that way they won't have to train you and you're in.
Yeah because nobody in the CG industry except Pixar uses Renderman right?
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?
Well, Pixar started as an independent spin-off from ILM. And Pixar and ILM now have the same parent company.
They're not a software company like Adobe is. They're a "software company" like nVidia are: they have to write software to make their product that they DO sell: Video cards/Movies.
Pixar started as a hardware company. They hired animators originally to create content to show off what the Pixar Image Computer could do. And of course, they created lots of software to drive the machines. The company was founded by software/hardware guys: Ed Catmull, Steve Jobs, Alvy Ray Smith, and their early contributions are legendary in the field of computer graphics. They set up a software division separate from the rest of the company for the development and sale of RenderMan, which was the industry standard for CG in movies for many years. I can't remember what time period this way, but there was a 10-year stretch when 27 of the 30 thirty films nominated for Best Visual Effects in the Oscars used Pixar's Renderman.
They did commericals (I remember the old Listerine and Livesavers spots) to pay the bills while they worked on the software before their first movie.