Luxrender - Free unbiased render engine

[jbshorty]

Another free unbiased render engine is about to be released...
(and no it's not associated with Luxology)

http://www.luxrender.org

I'm sure glad i held out purchasing Maxwell... And then Fry... And then Hypershot...

[Tartiflette]

Thanks for the information !
Let's hope it develops at a good pace, since it seems to be very interesting... And Open Source !


Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette

[shoeach]

jb, thanks for this information.

I saved this thread in my “useful information” holder.


Syuichi

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by jbshorty

Another free unbiased render engine is about to be released...

Man, how many rendering engines do we need to get satisfied? Personally, C6's renderer or Blender's are good enough for me. Now that I have modo, I think I would just stick with it. I'm not a fan of ultra-realism, anyway. Pale soft contrast bores me to death. Might as well take a camera and shoot it. What's the point? I like exaggeration, caricatures, contrast between foreground and background, something that would make passersby take notice. That's one of the things you learn in art school. Try picking up an art book and you'll see the same principle applied, ie, one abstract painting shows a man with two eyes dangling, another is a 2d collage showing a mutilated head, etc. Purpose? To get noticed. Of course, those are extreme cases. But you get the point. I hope.

Of course, that's just me and my 1c.

[jbshorty]

If you are making "art" then i agree there is no point to achieve 100% realistic imaging. But if you're working as a product designer, realistic imaging is critical. Not only to sell the concept, but also to proof a design which might cost $10,000 - $250,000 to develop. Of course if you're working on that level, you already have Maxwell and you have no time to hang around Polyloop discussing these things . So, why do we need another free unbiased renderer? I suppose all this is good to keep the "big boys" in check, otherwise they could (would) charge much higher prices for their software. Personally i think it's great that so many programmers are willing to devote all this work into an unpaid project.

[Tartiflette]

Sketchy, you're right about the "purpose" of the image.

However, being given the ability to mimic the exact behavior of complex lighting situations can give interesting results.

For example, caustics in standard applications often give very poor results whereas it's very impressive in "unbiased" render engines.


Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette

[Couerl]

Originally Posted by jbshorty

Personally i think it's great that so many programmers are willing to devote all this work into an unpaid project.

I agree, but the first law of physics is there's no such thing as a free lunch and software obey's this rule like everything else. I suspect that eventually applications like blender will cost money and 3D brush, which was free at first now costs money along with Moi and countless other programs throughout time. Fact is, without financial backing many of these apps need to be free in order to gain exposure and build popularity or any myriad of other reasons and like the minor leagues, sometimes a developer just needs to build a resume etc.. I'm not saying any of it is bad or anything, far from it and I hope to see low prices and strong programs like Amapi and Hexagon, Carrara and Modo etc.. continue to be developed and give us hours of poly knitting, rendering and animating pleasure.

[jbshorty]

That is normally true. But read the notes on their website :

• Lux is and will remain free software. This is a matter of freedom : we believe people should be free to use Lux in all the ways that are socially useful.
• Users are the center of the project : a software without a community is an empty seashell. People that are using, testing, reporting bugs, proposing features, or even just commenting results are spending time doing it. Their participation is essential as it forms the living heart of a project.
• A project like Lux is the sum of hundreds of people sharing their knowledge in computer graphics papers, books, websites, university courses,...so here we are just playing with their ideas, and we don't search personal fame. Among all these people, Lux started thanks to Matt Pharr and Greg Humphreys excellent book and project ; we are PBRT's child.
• We hope Lux will be more than just a software, but also a human adventure creating positive scientific, artistic, and friendship exchanges.

Also they have moved to a new server, due to some technical problems, and it appears the download is available now:

http://www.luxrender2.org/

shorty

[Couerl]

Well okay, but this still goes against the laws of nature in the end and it can be a community of gnomes in a seashell for all I care. ;)
Usually the only programs that stay "free" have have G-strings attatched.

(That looks better). ;)

[jbshorty]

not always... and not always

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by jbshorty

I suppose all this is good to keep the "big boys" in check, otherwise they could (would) charge much higher prices for their software.

I know what you mean, shorty. After all these years, the big boys are still acting as if hobbyists are not a force to reckon with. I'm sure DAZ made more money selling C6 than Maxon selling C4D10. You can sell a product for a thousand bucks and only 3 people will buy it. Hobbyists are left out. Sell it for at least 50% off and thousands would grab it. The annoying thing for me is they come in 3-4 flavors. One flavor doesn't come with an advanced renderer, hair or something. I'm just glad modo is not going in that splitty direction.

[jbshorty]

Originally Posted by Sketchy

I know what you mean, shorty. After all these years, the big boys are still acting as if hobbyists are not a force to reckon with. I'm sure DAZ made more money selling C6 than Maxon selling C4D10. You can sell a product for a thousand bucks and only 3 people will buy it. Hobbyists are left out. Sell it for at least 50% off and thousands would grab it. The annoying thing for me is they come in 3-4 flavors. One flavor doesn't come with an advanced renderer, hair or something. I'm just glad modo is not going in that splitty direction.

yes, but we are much more tempted to spend $500 on $1000 software than we are to spend $500 of $500 software. We are suckers for these limited offers. I pat myself on the back for resisting to buy Fryrender for 50% off (a bargain at just $600). good boy, shorty. good boy...

i downloaded Luxrender already and am rendering the provided sample file of the Blender monkey-heads. Will see how it looks tomorrow. at the time i left my office, it had run about 2 hours (on 2 threads) and was still a bit noisy...

[mayito7777]

I cannot get it to work.

[jbshorty]

Originally Posted by mayito7777

I cannot get it to work.

When you downloaded, did you save all the example files that were included? Here is a render of the included monkey heads from Blender. I just ran the executable, clicked File>OpenScenefile, then double click on "Test Scenes" and then select the file "suzanne.lxs". About 30 seconds later it should rendering... This image was running for about 17 hours (most of that time on 2 threads).

shorty

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by jbshorty

yes, but we are much more tempted to spend $500 on $1000 software than we are to spend $500 of $500 software. We are suckers for these limited offers.

That's true. Frankly, I would just have stick with Blender. But you know how peeps are. My pocket was itching to buy something. And I was actually choosing between C4D10 and Modo and Rhino 4 before the DAZ/Lux discount offer. That's why I grabbed it right away. I'm glad I did. I've purchased video tuts by Andrew Brown and Dan Ablan and I enjoy watching them. More than watching films in theatres which will cost you 15 bucks in one sitting.

BTW, Andrew Brown has a new one here.

[jbshorty]

Andy's voice makes me so sleepy...

[Sketchy]

Originally Posted by Tartiflette

Sketchy, you're right about the "purpose" of the image.

However, being given the ability to mimic the exact behavior of complex lighting situations can give interesting results.

For example, caustics in standard applications often give very poor results whereas it's very impressive in "unbiased" render engines.

Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette

Yup, I don't even get it when they say "Renderman-compliant", which was based on Pixar's renderer, if I'm not mistaken. Thing is, Pixar has been in the business of making animated cartoons, which is obviously not the ultra-realistic kind. Although that's the kind of rendering I would like to achieve. Bright with high contrast as if you're into the scene environment and could actually touch the 3d characters. The Ratatoille animation film has one of the best renders I have ever seen. That's not ultra-realism. That's exaggerated realism. We have only one life to live. Copying photographs exactly as it is is not exactly the way to be remembered in this world, I think.