/3/ - 3DCG

>>463913
You're welcome! If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to let us know - either by email or in our forums. Thanks!

Hi,

PRMan is a great renderer and offers many benefits to bigger production studios. But it doesn't really come close to RS in terms of performance. I'm talking about ray traced effects/GI here - its rasterization feautres are great. Also, in quite a few cases, RS is easier to setup/use, too. A few of our customers are ex-PRMan users although, admittedly, most came from MR/VRay/Arnold or other GPU renderers.

Hey guys, my name is Panos and I'm one of the RS Developers. I just noticed this thread and thought I should offer some insight:

First of all, Redshift *is* biased but includes several unbiased and "physically correct" techniques. Someone here said that VRay and MR are 'truly' unbiased and Redshift isn't. This is a false statement. Both VRay and MR do point-based illumination like irradiance caching, importons, photons, etc. Redshift can do these, too. So if you want silky-smooth GI, you can get it. But it *also* offers brute-force techniques which give you better/sharper/easier-to-setup GI at the cost of speed and some noise (unless your crank up the samples). Or you can mix and match like in VRay and MR: use brute-force for your primary GI and some point-based algorithm for your secondary. This gives the best quality vs performance ratio. Redshift is the only GPU renderer offering that kind of functionality.

Also, you should know that "biased" means tricks like clamping intensities to avoid artifacts like fireflies. Redshift does that so you don't need to resort to tricks like rendering super-high-rez and then downsampling to get rid of fireflies etc.

If you haven't given Redshift a try, I recommend you do so. I could be writing about its advantages all day and you might find lots of people praising it but, by the end of the day, you'll be the judge of whether it fits your pipeline or not. And the only way to do that is to try it.

Thanks

-Panos