[HN Gopher] DreamWorks releases OpenMoonRay source code ___________________________________________________________________ DreamWorks releases OpenMoonRay source code Author : dagmx Score : 455 points Date : 2023-03-15 16:38 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | dimator wrote: | i'm curious: what is the incentive for dreamworks to open-source | this? surely having exclusive access to a parallel renderer of | this quality is a competitive advantage to other studios? | StrangeATractor wrote: | I can imagine a few reasons why they'd do this, but some of it | may just be 'why not'. Studio Ghibli has done the same thing | with their animation software and it hasn't turned into a | disaster for them. Making movies, especially movies that people | will pay to watch is hard, and any serious competitors already | have their own solutions. If people use moonray and that | becomes a popular approach, competitors who don't use it are at | a disadvantage from a hiring perspective. Also, DreamWorks | controls the main repo of what may become a popular piece of | tooling. There's soft power to be had there. | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | They mentioned in this video[0] that they expect others, mainly | other studios, to contribute to the project. | | [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozd4JqquG3k&t=117 | Someone1234 wrote: | Unreal is eating everyone's lunch. If they cannot get anyone | else to contribute to their renderer, it will wind up getting | shelved for Unreal with a lot of smaller animation studios | already using Unreal instead of more traditional 3D Rendering | solutions like Maya. | dahart wrote: | > If they cannot get anyone else to contribute to their | renderer, it will wind up getting shelved for Unreal | | Why do you think this? Nobody in film or vfx is using Unreal | for final rendering, Unreal is built for games not offline | path tracing. | Someone1234 wrote: | Tons of studios are now using Unreal for final rendering, | including Disney and several blockbuster movies. | | The fantastic thing about Unreal is that you can do | realtime rendering on-set (e.g. for directorial | choices/actor feedback) and then post-production upscale it | with the ceiling only being cost. Unreal in the TV/Movie | industry is already huge and only getting bigger, year-on- | year. | | You've definitely seen a TV or Movie that used Unreal. | packetslave wrote: | _You 've definitely seen a TV or Movie that used Unreal._ | | Name a major-studio movie that rendered final camera- | ready VFX in Unreal. | | For TV, you can name The Mandalorian season one, sure, | but even then, ILM switched The Volume to their own in- | house real-time engine for season two. | dagmx wrote: | DNeg did one sequence in the latest Matrix film. But it | looked very obviously "real-time". | | But yeah otherwise I agree with your points. The person | you're replying to is vastly over estimating unreal use | for final CG. | | Definitely isn't being primarily used for hero character | work. | packetslave wrote: | Yup. The state of the art for real-time rendering just | isn't there yet for hero work. Even ILM's custom Helios | renderer is only used for environments and environment- | based lighting, as far as I've read. Assets, fx shots, | and characters are still rendered offline. | | Even with real-time rendering for environments, I'm sure | there's plenty of post-processing "Nuke magic" to make it | camera-ready. It's not like they're shooting UE straight | to "film". | | I _have_ seen reports of Unreal Engine being used quite | successfully for pre-viz, shot planning, animatics, etc., | though. | short_sells_poo wrote: | I'm inclined to believe you, but can you quote one | reasonably popular movie that was rendered with Unreal? | explaininjs wrote: | Unreal is used in TV quite often, yes. But no major | studios use it for theatric releases, and I'm not aware | of any who plan to. (Partner is in the industry) | dahart wrote: | Which Disney films use Unreal for final render? Disney | has two separate path tracing renderers that are in | active development and aren't in danger of being replaced | by Unreal. | | https://disneyanimation.com/technology/hyperion/ | | https://renderman.pixar.com/ | | These renderers are comparable in use case & audience to | MoonRay, which is why I don't think you're correct that | MoonRay needs external contribution to survive. | | "Used unreal" for on-set rendering is hand-wavy and not | what you claimed. Final render is the goal post. | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | I'm not really sure if they are competing with Unreal. Large | studios will probably never use real time rendering for the | final render unless it achieves the same quality. Dreamworks | have built a renderer specifically for render farms (little | use of GPUs, for example) which means they are not targeting | small studios at all, rather something like Illumination | Entertainment or Sony (think Angry Birds movie). | aprdm wrote: | Except no one uses unreal for movies.. | naikrovek wrote: | yes, unreal is used in movies and TV shows, both. usually | not entire movies or shows, but lots of individual scenes. | aprdm wrote: | Not for final shots that make to the cinema.. for tv yes | ronsor wrote: | The other large studios that compete with them (e.g. Pixar) | already have their own just-as-good renderers. | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | Even still, what's the incentive to open-source? So the | community can bootstrap a better solution than Pixar? | chungy wrote: | Why not? | | The tool may be good, but the output visuals are only as | good as the artists that use said tools. They can open | source the tools all they want and try to hire all the | talent that can use it. :) | mdorazio wrote: | By showing they care about open source, there's a chance | they'll attract developers and animators who care about | that. | pipo234 wrote: | Seems targeted at CentOS7, support for which is sunset in | little over a year. Smells a bit like abandonware, hoping | for adoption by unpaid volunteers. | | Still, dumping it into FOSS community is not the worst | graveyard for commercial software... | packetslave wrote: | re: CentOS7, the VFX Reference Platform | (https://vfxplatform.com/) is probably relevant here. | Their latest Linux Platform Recommendations report from | August last year already covers migrations off of CentOS | 7 / RHEL7 before the end of maintenance in 2024 | | Studios don't _want_ to upgrade fast (e.g. they 're not | interested in running Debian unstable or CentOS's | streaming updates thing)... they're interested in | _stability_ for hundreds of artists ' workstations. | | Getting commercial Linux apps like Maya, Houdini, Nuke, | etc. working well at scale is hard enough without the | underlying OS changing all the time. | not2b wrote: | It's not a big deal to take something built for CentOS7 | and port to a later Red Hat (or clone) distro. It appears | that they released a setup for what they use, which is | CentOS7. | op00to wrote: | Major animated movies take years to develop, and they | don't like to change the build process during. I used to | cover a major animation studio for a major Linux vendor | and they did in fact use very old shit. | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | They just released a feature film with this renderer, | grossing $462 million and widely praised for its | animation. | | Large studios don't update so regularly vs e.g. a | startup. They have very specific setups, which is in fact | a large part of why it took them so long to release | moonray vs when they said they would last year. And they | are moving to Rocky Linux soon IIRC. | | >dumping it into FOSS community | | They are not "dumping" anything. Would it have hurt to | look into the facts before commenting? | toyg wrote: | Or create a pipeline of young talent who can come from | university already trained on their system. | satvikpendem wrote: | The competitive advantage is in storytelling, not necessarily | visual fidelity. People will watch a somewhat worse looking | movie with a better story than a better looking movie with a | worse story. And honestly, can anyone really tell slightly | worse graphical quality these days when so many animated movies | already look good? | | The exception, of course, is James Cameron and his Avatar | series. People will absolutely watch something that looks 10x | better because the visual fidelity itself is the draw, it's the | main attraction over the story. This is usually not the case in | most movies however. | nineteen999 wrote: | The rendering in the Avatar movies is at the cutting edge. | But quite apart from the very uninteresting storytellying | there's something there that just doesn't work for me | visually - I don't know if it's the uncanny valley effect of | the giant skinny blue people with giant eyes or what, but I'd | definitely rather watching something creative and painterly | like the Puss in Boots movie, or even something like the Last | of Us with really well integrated CG visuals and VFX that | aren't necessarily top of the line, but well integrated and | support a good story. | satvikpendem wrote: | Did you watch in IMAX 3D? I watched in both 3D and 2D and | the 2D simply cannot compare to the 3D. The way most 3D | movies work is the 3D effects are done after the fact in | post-production. 3D in Avatar movies are done entirely in | the shooting phase, through 3D cameras. Hence, the 3D in | Avatar films is much more immersive to me than in something | like Dr Strange 2, which simply could not compare. | NateEag wrote: | I remember watching Avatar in 3D and being blown away | (both by the dreadful screenwriting and by the amazing 3D | effect). | | It taught me that the key you immersive 3D is to treat | the screen as a window. Things have depth beyond it, but | never protrude out of it. | | I noticed only two shots in the movie where anything | protruded from the screen towards me, and they really | caught my attention. | daniel-thompson wrote: | > surely having exclusive access to a parallel renderer of this | quality is a competitive advantage to other studios? | | The renderer is an important of the VFX toolkit, but there are | more than a few production-quality renderers out there, some of | them are even FOSS. A studio or film's competitive advantage is | more around storytelling and art design. | bhouston wrote: | At this point every studio has their own renderer, Pixar has | RenderMan, Illumination has one from MacGuff, Disney has their | Hyperion, and Animal Logic has Glimpse. | packetslave wrote: | and there's still plenty of Arnold and Clarisse houses out | there. | [deleted] | homarp wrote: | previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32357470 | app4soft wrote: | It was an announcement of upcoming source opening, but at the | moment there was no public source repo. | mindcrime wrote: | Is anybody else intrigued by the mention of _multi-machine and | cloud rendering via the Arras distributed computation | framework._? | | Is this something new? The code seems to be included as sub- | modules of OMR itself, and all the repos[1][2][3] show recent | "Initial Commit" messages, so I'm operating on the assumption | that it is. If so, I wonder if this is something that might prove | useful in other contexts... | | [1]: https://github.com/dreamworksanimation/arras4_core | | [2]: https://github.com/dreamworksanimation/arras4_node | | [3]: https://github.com/dreamworksanimation/arras_render | ur-whale wrote: | Man, I can't wait for this to be properly (luxrender-level) | integrated to Blender. | | Especially the shaders (materials), which I feel is currently the | weakest part of all the open source renders Blender supports | natively (eevee, cycles, lux) | app4soft wrote: | Anybody has a success with build & run it under Linux? (Debian | 11.x/Ubuntu 22.04.x) | zokier wrote: | The docs are for centos but from the looks of it I don't see | any major roadblocks for Debian based distros? | | https://docs.openmoonray.org/getting-started/installation/bu... | ur-whale wrote: | The docker-based build worked fine for me on Ubuntu 22.04. | | I haven't yet tried to pull the resulting binaries out of the | docker container to see if it still works natively on 22.04. | alhirzel wrote: | It appears they currently only support a Docker container build | and a CentOS build. I am working on a build script (PKGBUILD) | for Arch Linux. | ar9av wrote: | Quality 3d animation software is available to anyone with | Blender. If someone gets this renderer working as an addon (which | will obviously happen) artist will get a side by side comparison | of what their work looks like with both cycles and a professional | studio product, for free. | | This is win, win, win for Blender, OSS and the community. | greenknight wrote: | Not just that, I am assuming that there are parts of that code, | that will be analysed by the Cycles developers, to enhance | Cycles to improve it. | gabereiser wrote: | This. Pixar's Renderman has been an "option" for a while. It | was out of band though. The cycles team will look at the | theory behind what's going on in renderers like this and will | make the tech work inside cycles. Maybe someone will port | this as another render option but really the sauce is their | lighting models and parallel vectorization which could | improve cycles already abysmally slow render times. | | Renderman for Blender: | | https://rmanwiki.pixar.com/pages/viewpage.action?mobileBypas. | .. | ykl wrote: | For anyone that is curious, this is the paper that describes the | core vectorized path tracing architecture in Moonray: | | http://www.tabellion.org/et/paper17/MoonRay.pdf | | Extracting sufficient coherency from path tracing in order to be | able to get good SIMD utilization is a surprisingly difficult | problem that much research effort has been poured into, and | Moonray has a really interesting solution! | bri3d wrote: | This paper is the first place I've found a production use of | Knights' Landing / Xeon Phi, the Intel massively-multicore | Atom-with-AVX512 accelerator system, outside of HPC / science | use cases. | | And for this use case, it makes perfect sense! | ace2358 wrote: | Is that sort of code able to 'just run' on their arc series | of GPUs? | | It feels like intel kinda hates AVX512 on the cpu side (or | wants to upsell you for it) so I'm wondering if they turned | those cards into their GPUs | zokier wrote: | I don't think Arc and Xeon Phi have much commonality at all | aprdm wrote: | AVX512 is used in VFX for rendering, as well as in tensorflow | ? | pengaru wrote: | > Extracting sufficient coherency from path tracing in order to | be able to get good SIMD utilization is a surprisingly | difficult problem | | Huh, I'd have assumed SIMD would just be exploited to improve | quality without a perf hit, by turning individual paths into | ever so slightly dispersed path-packets likely to still | intersect the same objects. More samples per path traced... | berkut wrote: | If you only ever-so-slightly perturb paths, you generally | don't get anywhere near as much of a benefit from monte carlo | integration, especially for things like light transport at a | global non-local scale (might plausibly be useful for | splitting for scattering bounces or something in some cases). | | So it's often worth paying the penalty of having to sort | rays/hitpoints into batches to intersect/process them more | homogeneously, at least in terms of noise variance reduction | per progression. | | But very much depends on overall architecture and what you're | trying to achieve (i.e. interactive rendering, or batch | rendering might also lead to different solutions, like time | to first useful pixel or time to final pixel). | xeromal wrote: | [flagged] | softfalcon wrote: | This is exactly why I jumped into the comments. I was hoping | someone had some relevant implementation details that isn't | just a massive GitHub repo (which is still awesome, but hard to | digest in one sitting). | | Thank you! | bhouston wrote: | Is there any comparisons to GPU-accelerated rendering? It seems | most people are going that direction rather than trying to | optimize for CPUs these days, especially via AVX instructions. | jsheard wrote: | CPUs are still king at the scale Dreamworks/Pixar/etc operate | at, GPUs are faster up to a point but they hit a wall in | extremely large and complex scenes. They just don't have | enough VRAM, or the work is too divergent and batches too | small to keep all the threads busy. In recent years the high- | end renderers (including MoonRay) _have_ started supporting | GPU rendering alongside their traditional CPU modes, but the | GPU mode is meant for smaller scale work like an artist | iterating on a single asset, and then for larger tasks and | final frame rendering it 's still off to the CPU farm. | | Pixar did a presentation on bringing GPU rendering to | Renderman, which goes over some of the challenges: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiWr5aqDeck | pixelpoet wrote: | What's your opinion on renderers such as Redshift which | explicitly target production rendering and support out of | core rendering on GPUs? See e.g. https://www.maxon.net/en/r | edshift/features?categories=631816 (Disclosure: I work on | this.) | virtualritz wrote: | As someone said above: GPUs are fine & faster as long as | your scene stays simple. As soon as you hit a certain | scene complexity ceiling, they become much slower that | CPU renderers. | | I would also argue that for this specific task, i.e. | offline rendering such frames, the engineering overhead | to make stuff work on GPUs is better spent making stuff | faster and scale more efficiently on CPUs.[1] | | I worked in blockbuster VFX for 15 years. It's been a | while but I have network of people in that industry, many | working on these renderers. The above is kinda the | consensus whenever I talk to them. | | [1] With the aforementioned caveat: if the stuff you work | on is always under that complexity ceiling targeting GPUs | can certainly make sense. | bhouston wrote: | So we just need GPUs with 128GB of ram then? Or move | towards the Apple M-series design where CPU+GPU both have | insanely fast access to all ram... | aseipp wrote: | GPUs need RAM that can handle a lot of bandwidth, so that | all of the execution units can remain constantly fed. For | bandwidth, there is both a width and a rate of transfer | (often bounded by the clock speed) which combined yield | the overall bandwidth, i.e. a 384-bit bus at XXXX million | transfers/second. It will never matter how much compute | or RAM they have if these don't align and you can't feed | the cores. Modern desktop DDR has bandwidth that is too | low for this, in general, on desktop platforms, given the | compute characteristics of a modern GPU, which has | shitloads of compute. Despite all that, signal integrity | on parallel RAM interfaces has very tight tolerances. DDR | sockets are very carefully placed with this in mind on | motherboards, for instance. GDDR, which most desktop | class graphics cards use instead of normal DDR, has much | higher bandwidth (e.g. GDDR6x offers 21gbps/pin while | DDR5 is only around 4.8gbp/s total) but even tighter | interface characteristics than that. That's one reason | why you can't socket GDDR: the physical tolerances | required for the interface are extremely tight and the | necessary signal integrity required means a socket is out | of the question. | | Here is an example, go compare the RAM interfaces between | an Nvidia A100 with HBM versus an Nvidia 3080, and see | how this impacts performance. On compute-bound workloads, | an Nvidia A100 will absolutely destroy a 3080 in terms of | overall efficiency. One reason for this is because the | A100 will have a memory interface that is 3-4x wider | which is absolutely vital for lots of workloads. That | means 3-4x the amount of data can be fed into execution | units in the same clock cycle. That means you can clock | the overall system lower, and that means you're using | less power, while achieving similar (or better) | performance. The only way a 3080 with a 256-bit bus can | compare to a A100 with a 1024-bit bus is by pushing the | clocks higher (thus increasing the rate of | transfers/second), but that causes more heat and power | usage, and it scales very poorly in practice e.g. a 10% | clock speed increase might result in a measly 1-2% | improvement. | | So now, a bunch of things fall out of these observations. | You can't have extremely high-bandwidth RAM, today, | without very tight interface characteristics. For | desktops and server-class systems, CPUs don't need | bandwidth like GPUs, so they can get away with sockets. | That has some knock on benefits; CPU memory can benefit | from economies-of-scale on selling RAM sticks, for | example. Lots of people need RAM sticks so you're in a | good spot to buy more. And because sockets exist "in | three dimensions", there's a huge increase in "density | per square-inch" on the motherboard. If you want a many- | core GPU to remain fed, you need soldered RAM which | necessitates a fixed SKU for deployment, or you need to | cut down on the compute so lower-bandwidth memory can | feed things appropriately, negating the reason you went | to GPUs in the first place (more parallel compute). | Soldered RAM also means that the compute/memory ratios | are now fixed forever. One nice thing about a CPU with | sockets is that you can more flexibly arbitrage resources | over time; if you find a way to speed something up with | more RAM, you can just add it assuming you aren't maxed | out. | | Note that Apple Silicon is designed for lower power | profiles; it has good perf/watt, not necessarily overall | best performance in every profile. It uses 256 or 512-bit | LPDDR5X, and even goes as high as 1024-bit(!!!) on the | Max series apparently. But they can't just ignore the | laws of physics; at extremely high bandwidth and bus | widths you're going to be very subject to signal | interface requirements. You have physical limitations | that prevent the bountiful RAM sticks that each have | multiple, juicy Samsung DDR5 memory chips on them. The | density suffers. So Apple is only limited to so much RAM; | there's very little way around this unless they start | stacking in 3-dimensions or something. That's one of the | other reasons they likely have moved to soldered memory | for so long now; it simply makes extremely high | performance interfaces like this possible. | | All in all the economies of scale for RAM sticks combined | with their density means that GPUs will probably continue | to be worse for workloads that benefit from lots of | memory. You just can't meet the combined physical | interface and bandwidth requirements at the same density | levels. | jsheard wrote: | It's easier said than done, there's consistently a huge | gulf between CPU and GPU memory limits. Even run-of-the- | mill consumer desktops can run 128GB of RAM, which | exceeds even the highest end professional GPUs VRAM, and | the sky is the limit with workstation and server | platforms. AMD EPYC can support 2TB of memory! | berkut wrote: | Those are _generally_ being used on much smaller | productions, or at least "simpler" fidelity things (i.e. | non-photo CG animation like Blizzards's Overwatch). | | So for Pixar/Dreamworks style things (look great, but not | photo-real) they're useable and provide a definite | benefit in terms of iteration time for lookdev artists | and lighters, but it's not there yet in terms of high-end | rendering at scale. | aprdm wrote: | I think it's mostly a question of price currently. AMD CPUs | are much cheaper per pixel produced that GPUs | polishdude20 wrote: | So the idea is one CPU can have hundreds of gigabytes of | ram at a time and the speed of the cpu is no problem | because you can scale the process over as many CPUs as you | want? | ShadowBanThis01 wrote: | It took a bit of hunting to find what an "MCRT" renderer is: | Monte Carlo raytracer. | abdellah123 wrote: | I'm a software engineer with no animation xp. Can someone explain | what this tool is (and is not) and how it fits in an animation | project. | | e.g: can I make an animation movie using only moonray? what other | tools are needed? and what knowledge do I (we) need to do that? | antegamisou wrote: | It's by and large mathematical software, like all renderers. So | it isn't interactive in a manner like software that allows | moving a character model and sequencing frames to make an | animation. It's a kind of a 'kernel' in some sense for | animation and 3D modelling software. | | The source files contain the algorithms/computations needed to | solve various equations that people involved in Computer | Graphics research have came up with to simulate various | physical - optical phenomena (lighting, shadows, water | reflections, smoke, waves) in the most efficient (fast) and and | usually photorealistic sense for a single image (static scene) | already created (character/landspace models, textures) in a | program. | | Since there are various different techniques for the simulation | of one specific phenomenon, it's interesting to peek into the | tricks used by a very large animation studio. | hirako2000 wrote: | I have no experience with moonray, but it being a render, the | answer would be.. No. | | The renderer is only one piece of the entire animated movie | production pipeline. | | Modeling -> Texturing ~ rigging /Animation -> post processing | effects -> rendering - > video editing | | That's a simplified view of the visual part of producing a | short or long cgi film | | It is a lot of knowledge to aquire so a production team is | likely made of specialists and sub specialists (lighting?) | working to a degree together. | | The best achieving software, especially given its affordability | is likely Blender. Other tools lile cinema4d, Maya and of | course 3d smax are also pretty good all in one products that | cover the whole pileline, although pricey. | | Start with modeling, then texturing, then animation. Etc. Then | dive into the slice that attracts you the most. Realistically | you aren't going to ship a professional grade film so you may | as well just learn what you love, and who knows perhaps one day | become a professional and appear in the long credit name list | at the end of a Disney/Pixar, Dreamworks hit. | virtualritz wrote: | > Modeling -> Texturing ~ rigging /Animation -> post | processing effects -> rendering - > video editing | | In animation (and VFX), editing comes at the beginning. | Throwing away frames (and all the work done to create them) | is simply too expensive. Handles (the extra frames at the | beginning and start of a shot) are usually very small. I'd | say <5 frames. | | Also modeling & texturing and animation usually happen in | parallel. Later, animation and lighting & rendering usually | happen in parallel as well. | m1nz1 wrote: | Are there books that teach people about the sorts of | systems used to make animated movies? I've seen game engine | books and the like. Physically based rendering is on my | list, but I wonder if there are other interesting reads I'm | missing. | reactivenz wrote: | Yes, classic book where from 90's like "The Renderman | Companion" or "Advanced RenderMan", and then there is | toolings books, for each tool. I used to own many Maya | books and 3DS Max books. | thomastjeffery wrote: | In the most casual sense, a renderer is what "takes a picture" | of the scene. | | A scene is made of objects, light sources, and a camera. The | renderer calculates the reflection of light on the objects' | surfaces from the perspective of the camera, so that it can | decide what color each pixel is in the resulting image. | | Objects are made up of a few different data structures: one for | physical shape (usually a "mesh" of triangles); one for | "texture" (color mapped across the surface); and one for | "material" (alters the interaction of light, like adding | reflections or transparency). | | People don't write the scene data by hand: they use tools to | construct each object, often multiple tools for each data | structure. Some tools focus on one feature: like ZBrush for | "sculpting" a mesh object shape. Other tools can handle every | step in the pipeline. For example, Blender can do modeling, | rigging, animation, texturing and material definition, | rendering, post-processing, and even video editing; and that's | leaving out probably 95% of its entire feature set. | | If you are interested at all in exploring 3D animation, I | recommend downloading Blender. It's free software licensed | under GPLv3, and runs well on every major platform. It's | incredibly full-featured, and the UI is excellent. Blender is | competitive with nearly every 3D digital art tool in existence; | particularly for animation and rendering. | virtualritz wrote: | It's an offline 3D rendering software that turns a scene | description into a photorealistic image. Usually such a | description is for a single frame of animation. | | Offline being the opposite of realtime. I.e. a frame taking | possibly hours to render whereas in a realtime renderer it must | take fractions of a second. | | Maybe think of it like a physical camera in a movie. And a very | professional one for that. But then a camera doesn't get you | very far if you consider the list of people you see when | credits roll by. :] | | Similarly, at the very least, you need something to feed the | renderer a 3D scene, frame by frame. Usually this is a DCC app | like Maya, Houdini etc. or something created in-house. That's | where you do your animation. After you created the stuff you | want to animate and the sets where that lives ... etc., etc. | | Moonray has a Hydra USD delegate. That is an API to send such | 3D scenes to a renderer. There is one for Blender too[1]. That | would be one way to get data in there, I'd reckon. | | Hope that makes sense. | | [1] https://github.com/GPUOpen- | LibrariesAndSDKs/BlenderUSDHydraA... | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Lots of submodules. We were just talking about these, the other | day... | bhouston wrote: | Looks nice! | | It has a Hydra render delegate so that is nice. Does Blender | support being a Hydra client yet? It would be nice to have it | supported natively in Blender itself. If it did, one could easily | switch renderers between this and others. | | I understand Autodesk is going this way with its tooling. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | I had the same question. There exists a USD addon for Blender | that support Hydra, so probably you could get that to work with | a bit of trial and error! | | https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/BlenderUSDHydraA... | dagmx wrote: | AMD have an addon for Blender that supports Hydra, though it is | a bit slow. There's ongoing work to add it to Blender itself | natively | | https://projects.blender.org/BogdanNagirniak/blender/src/bra... | capableweb wrote: | > It would be nice to have it supported natively in Blender | itself. If it did, one could easily switch renderers between | this and others. | | Blender in general is setup to work with different renderers, | especially since the work of Eevee which is the latest renderer | to be added. Some part of the work on integrating Eevee also | put some groundwork for making it easier in the future to add | more of them. | | Most probably this renderer would be added as a addon (if | someone in the community does it), rather than in the core of | Blender. | antegamisou wrote: | Wonder how it fares against the monopoly of Pixar's Renderman. | ralusek wrote: | I don't think there is a monopoly renderer. | jsheard wrote: | There isn't even a monopoly within Disney, they acquired | Pixar 17 years ago but Disney Animation Studios still develop | their own Hyperion renderer completely independently of | Pixar/Renderman. | sosodev wrote: | Just because it's hard to migrate existing workflows or is | there something that makes Hyperion superior? | jsheard wrote: | Hyperion has the advantage of being exclusive to WDAS, so | they can tailor it to their exact workflow and | requirements, while Renderman is a commercial product | with many users outside of Pixar all with their own wants | and needs. | pipeline_peak wrote: | o boi, shrek engine | dagmx wrote: | Memes aside, this has actually never been used for a shrek | film. The first film it was used for was How to Train Your | Dragon 3. | aidenn0 wrote: | If it was used in any of the _Puss in Boots_ movies, then it | was at least used in a Shrek spinoff... | jsheard wrote: | _Puss in Boots: The Last Wish_ was rendered with this | isatty wrote: | Perfection | daniel-thompson wrote: | Surprised nobody has mentioned this, but it looks like it | implements the render kernels in ISPC^, which is a tool that | exposes a CUDA-like SPMD model that runs over the vector lanes in | the CPU. | | ISPC is also used by Disney's Hyperion renderer, see | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326662420_The_Desig... | | Neat! | | ^ https://ispc.github.io/ | xmcqdpt2 wrote: | Neat! | | Vectorization is the best part of writing Fortran. This looks | like it makes it possible to write fortran-like code in C. I | wonder how it compares to ifort / openMP? | chungy wrote: | The README is a bit opaque when I don't know the terminology, but | the website seems to clue me in that it's a raytracer: | https://openmoonray.org/ | toxik wrote: | MCRT = Monte Carlo Ray Tracing ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-15 23:00 UTC)