Open source render

[jakerupert]

So, couldn't this made usable for hashusers also now?

 

Cycles Render Engine Released With Permissive License

http://code.blender.org/index.php/20...ssive-license/

[robcat2075]

The link doesn't work.

[Rodney]

I believe Jost meant to link to the following location:

 

Cycles Render Engine Released as Apache License

[robcat2075]

I guess I've heard of it but I'm not up on it. Is it a faster GPU-based thing?

[ludo_si]

I guess I've heard of it but I'm not up on it. Is it a faster GPU-based thing?

yes, it is a very fast gpu engine. 10 to 50 times faster than a CPU engine

[Rodney]

10 to 50 times faster than a CPU engine

 

That's quite a spread.

How can we make sure we get the 50x faster speed?

I'm not as keen on the 10x increase.

 

[ludo_si]

10 to 50 times faster than a CPU engine

 

That's quite a spread.

How can we make sure we get the 50x faster speed?

I'm not as keen on the 10x increase.

 

I use it every day and octane cycles for some rendering.

It depends on the graphics card. It also depends on the stage. but compared to a 4470 intel, my Nvidia gtx 780 is 10-20 times faster. and this is not a Titan.

This is the global illumination, radiosity. and rendering a scene takes a few seconds.

[ludo_si]

Here some sample with the same scene and parameter.

 

1) Octane gpu render. 14 sec

 

2/ cycles gpu render, 29 sec

 

3) cycle cpu render, 6 min 11 sec

 

4) scanline, juste ao no gi, 59 sec

 

Here some sample with the same scene and parameter.

 

 

 

1) Octane gpu render. 14 sec

 

2/ cycles gpu render, 29 sec

 

3) cycle cpu render, 6 min 11 sec

 

4) scanline, juste ao no gi, 59 sec

[robcat2075]

Here some sample with the same scene and parameter.

 

The cycles renders don't look too good. What's going wrong?

[ludo_si]

This is just bad lighting on my part. For example, it is just a lamp, global illumination and a simple difuse texture. But when I change render, I have to adjust the lighting (which I did not do to go faster).

On first cycles, sky is 0.5 power. The second, it's 1.0 power.

 

What is interesting is the speed between cpu and gpu.

[John Bigboote]

Going back to Jakes question... could it be used with A:M?

 

quote:

The design and purpose of Cycles always has been to work as an independent and reusable rendering engine. When Cycles was added to Blender two years ago, we decided to release it under GNU GPL first, specifically to ensure it would develop into a well integrated production rendering system for Blender. With that target to be established well, it’s now time to find out how Cycles could work outside of Blender too.

[largento]

I wouldn't turn my nose up at 10x faster, Rodney. :-)

 

Six minutes vs. 1 hour is big savings.

[Rodney]

I wouldn't turn my nose up at 10x faster, Rodney. :-)

 

Six minutes vs. 1 hour is big savings.

 

I won't. I'm just noting there is a pretty huge sized gap between 10x and 50x so we might as well focus on the gains that get us to 50x before putting effort into the 10x. It could even be the 10x is more important than that of the 50x for some unique situation or obscure reason.

 

This is the old Pareto Principle resurfacing again. But just because the 20% is more 'vital' than the 80% it in no way suggests the 80% is unimportant. In fact, when considering the principle itself, it can be reasoned that at least 20% of that 80% is entirely essential.

 

Speed is great but its only a small part of the picture. It helps to understand the end from the beginning (the goal we hope to reach or at least a reasonable outcome to achieve) the criteria that goes with it. Ludo si's imagery helps us visualize that. (Thanks!)

Stated another way: It sure would be great to go from LA to New York in 15 minutes but it'd be even better if we didn't leave everything we needed to make the journey successful back where we began the trip. The good news in that case would be that we still might be able to go back to LA and retrieve everything required and return to New York while only adding another 30 minutes (only 15 if we can have it sent one way).

[Fuchur]

There are just too many factors to determine all of that. Since the GPU will do it you need a good GPU. For instance most laptop-GPUs in general qualify as bad. A more expensive GPU will in general get you better results. Depending if this is OpenCL or CUDA (or both) and Nvidia may be better than an ATI or the other way round. (AMD/ATI cant do CUDA, OpenCL is often (not always) a little faster on AMDs of the same price range, etc.

 

And of course it highly depends on the scene you want to render. Some scence can be better parallized than others. Since GPUs are in fact "just" slow CPUs (this is a very simplified way of looking at it) BUT with a high a mount of cores (for instance 2048 cores) it is necessary that the tasks to be done can be sepearted in small parts to be rendered, etc.

 

There is nothing that will bring you to 50x faster in all situations. In the best situations this can happen, in worse situations you may just get 10 or even only the same speed as with an CPU-rendering... MOST situations however will give you a more or less high advantage. Keep in mind: Even 2x as fast as before is extremly useful... rendering something in 10 hours compared to 20 hours is still a big deal...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Vertexspline]

The cycles renderer is the newer renderer included in Blender. Its very good although one has to tweak it a bit. It is fast though and generally a lot faster than AM's and has more features.

 

Here is the facebook section ----as an introduction: https://www.facebook.com/blendercycles

[robcat2075]

Is it a stand-alone product like Octane? Something that reads in files like Octane does and then renders them? Then you could use it with A:M like people use Octane. Now.

 

If it's a bunch of code you need sort through to figure out how to use it, then programmers will be required.

[ludo_si]

What to say, also, is that it is an unbiased engine. It calculates the blurry reflections, "caustics,", objects lights, GI, transparency, AO. Very quickly.

 

It is impossible to say how much time is faster cycles, but with transparent objects with reflection and refraction and the difference is actually between 10 and 50 x faster. It also depends on the number of objects.

[ludo_si]

Here are two examples that show the interest of GPU vs. CPU.

I made a simple scene with radiosity AM, transparency, refraction, reflection.

We must try to compare what is comparable.

This requires the same parameters. (If possible)

(Note that I'm not trying to compare the rendering quality of AM vs cycles. The rendering are all different and interesting)

It's just the speed between CPU and GPU is useful.

the first is AM rendering ( 1 cpu intel 4770, 364 sec)

The second is Cycles ( gpu NVIDIA gtx 780) 12 sec

 

30 faster for a very simple scene

[Elm]

Interesting.

 

How did you export the choreography to cycles?

 

greetz,

Elm.

[ludo_si]

Interesting.

 

How did you export the choreography to cycles?

 

greetz,

Elm.

juste export obj. *16 and triangle too.

[Elm]

thanks!

 

Do I get you right - you used blender with cycles implemented, not some standalone version of cycles, right?

[ludo_si]

cycles work only with blender at this moment.

But it's possible to export a AM object.

 

Here an sample with killer bean

 

 

[Elm]

Do you know if that was that done via MDD or obj sequence?

[ludo_si]

Do you know if that was that done via MDD or obj sequence?

octane work with obj sequence.

Octane and cycles are both GPU renderer.

I have octane but never try to use a am scene in Octane.

I use octane fore realistic rendering.

[Fuchur]

cycles work only with blender at this moment.

But it's possible to export a AM object.

 

Here an sample with killer bean

 

 

 

This is an very unfair example: KillerBean 2 was created when? I think it surfaced somewhere inbetween 1999 and 2001 if I am not wrong. He remastered it later on, but it was still years before GPU rendering has been established at all or AO and stuff like that became useable.

KillerBean Forever has been published in the year 2009 and was created in Maya... I am not sure if it has been rendered with Octane or not, but there are many years inbetween.

 

Today A:M can archieve such an image quite easily too... but it will very likely take much longer to render since it is a CPU based calculation...

 

That is not to say that I would not like this to be implemented or that I do not admire Cycles... it is only about being fair here.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[ludo_si]

This is not the difference in quality that I wanted to show. But more that it is possible to export to a renderer as cycles or octane.

And that has already been done.

 

The rendering of AM is unique to Animation Master. It is impossible to get the same result in other software. It is in this that it is interesting to have multiple rendering engines. To have different effects.

 

AM gives a very cartoon.

AM toon rendering is superb.

Carrara studio is very cold and very artificial images.

Blender internal is very cartoon, it looks a bit like AM.

Volumetric rendering in blender is awesome.

3DSMax, and Maya, I'm not rich enough to use them. Lol

 

Cycles is very realistic in lighting.

Octane and cycles are very similar. Octane is faster but I find more flexible to use cycles. Octane render is less granular.

 

There are many solution to make beautiful images and express themselves. Be able to play with all its possibilities, it is an asset.

 

That is why I find that AM cycles would be nice.

 

Well on the first killer bean is in 1999 created and is not comparable to the current rendering of AM. But it's still awesome.

[Vertexspline]

Nice job LUDO with your examples , and I think you are just saying its would be nice to see cycles as a choice for AM. The trouble with using 3rd party renderers is often with materials and such as you have to use what the renderer needs.

 

If AM wanted to devote some time to incorporate cycles within AM and keep the materials and such in app that would seem like a nice plan and folks would benefit from a very realistic renderer plus having AM's which is I think very nice for making character animations in particular. Since the cost is all in development -----giving this as a long term to develop gets my vote.