- #MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION HOW TO#
- #MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION SOFTWARE#
- #MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION CODE#
- #MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION PLUS#
#MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION SOFTWARE#
If you want to know what they are and the pros, cons, check it out! Animators are always trying to find new and interesting software to sketch their designs instead of doing it in the old age way off on a paper or boards.
Users can use these 10 animation programs like a pro.
#MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION PLUS#
Where did you read that? I've seen several free procedural shaders over at renderman repository I believe, plus I've read how scenes in Blender with procedural textures were rendered to BMRT too.Here, you will find 10 best free animation software for Windows and Mac. Hmm BMRT doesn't support procedural textures Does BMRT do micropoly displacements like PRMan does? There are a few threads on it over at, but any programming stuff goes way over my head. I dont think PRMan can do radiosity, so you'd need BMRT in this setup as well.Īpparently there is some command or function thats only availible on a UNIX environment so it wont work on NT etc. He and I think a couple of other ppl left Pixar to start Exluna.īMRT which adheres to the renderman specification is often used in conjunction with PRMan to provide raytracing using some method called Frankenrender IIRC, which you can read about here from the BMRT manual. Before, he worked at Pixar where he was a TD (technical director) IIRC, and worked on the Renderman Specification. Larry Gritz is the author of BMRT and co-founder of Exluna. My guess is he sold BMRT to whoever's making Entropy now. Last thing I heard about the author is that he's working at Pixar now and stopped BMRT development. Albeit slower, it was good enough to compete with PRMan and I think it even had better radiosity.
#MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION HOW TO#
IIRC BMRT started as a student's project by someone who wanted to learn how to write a renderer.
#MAC OR PC COMPUTER ANIMATION CODE#
OS9 and earlier didn't really do SMP at all- you had to code to separate CPUs directly, and it was a mess. The main problem with making programs MP-aware is that it's not enough to just have the program as one process, you have to split it into multiple threads and make sure that the threads can all run concurrently and still get useful work done.īeOS was a weird little beast that attempted to force good MP-aware code by pushing programmers to write everything as a shitload of threads, which is not always a good thing to do, especially if you aren't a very good programmer. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Okay, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's for the OS coders to worry about, not us. you boot up, and Mach asks "okay, how many do you have?" Windows NT does the same thing, only it tends to also ask "and have you paid enough money to Microsoft to be allowed to use this many processors?" Then it just allocates CPU time among various processes and threads as needed. Mach was conceived as a distributed operating system and so abstracts CPUs as these nice little operating units. (Dedicated Baldrick followers will note that I am saying that there is something Linux is better at than FreeBSD, so take note, it is not likely to happen again) Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that Mach was inherently superior to, say, Windows NT or even a recent Linux kernel (it is better than FreeBSD, though) at multiple processor support. non-Mach on code with similar multi-threading optimization. What I am looking for is that for are data that compare Mach vs. Is there any evidence that a Mach-based Unix or Unix-based OS is better than any other Unix and/or WinNT/XP when running code compiled from an identical code base? I ask this because I used to see similar claims about BeOS, but found that when you looked closely, the BeOS application code was different in its level of multi-threading than the NT application code. I hear this claim quite reqularly, but have never seen any evidence to support it.
I wish where I work, we had the sort of budget needed to use renderman, but we don't and we've been just fine without it. I do know of its limitations and shortcomings though - I can write a book I'm sure going into them.
The maya renderer is flexible, and you can use it on up to 999 computers free of charge. It just doesn't help my situation at all. there's one of my shaders that nothing other than the maya renderer can render) Scenes need to be textured with PRman in mind from the start etc. It also pretty much requires custom programmed shaders by a programmer or team of programmers (to do anything worth a crap anyway. Pixar, Squaresoft, etc use renderman cause it IS generally considered the best. If I were to go with a 3rd party renderer, I'd go with Entropy currently Renderman is um well more expensive than maya with a $10,000 price tag, add to that a bridge program like mayaman - which STILL doesn't support all nodes and rendering plugins. It doesn't support all the nodes, and especially any plug-ins that involve rendering It is sooooo slooooow and it's pricing is such a rip off Stef, you didn't just call me and thousands of others morons did you?
0 kommentar(er)
