Comment by zuInnp
13 hours ago
Hm that’s interesting, I would have thought that Pixar and Disney Animation use the same render software, but no.
13 hours ago
Hm that’s interesting, I would have thought that Pixar and Disney Animation use the same render software, but no.
Dreamworks used Renderman(Pixar’s Renderman) along with several other commercial package for a Shark Tale. When Dreamworks acquired PDI, who made Shrek under contract for DWA, there was essentially a war between the two pipelines and PDI won. I was on the PDI side of the company, but there was a lot of positive things about the Renderman pipeline.
Hey I was on the PDI side as well, ahoy, nice to see you here! I had forgotten about Shark Tale using RenderMan, but I will say to the degree there was competition and to the degree that PDI won any pipeline battles, DWA eventually won the war. :P ;) There was plenty of cooperation as well, it just takes time for two companies to integrate, and plenty of people on both sides were quite attached to the cool tools they made. (I was certainly guilty!)
PDI’s toolset was pure magic for it’s time. When I joined, I was in heaven with how easy it was to make procedural animation, build new effects that crossed pipeline stages, render anything you could imagine… I wished I could share it with researchers and hobbyists.
We all had to imagine making our next show using each others pipeline and that was fun. In the end, I think Richard, Jono and other PDI folks ended up having a bit more influence because Shrek was so darn successful.
Custom vs. commercial was a constant issue. Were you around for the whole NextGen effort? DWA spent a fortune on some custom tools that only were used on a show, or maybe just a few sequences, before they were replaced with commercial tools.
1 reply →
I wonder why PDI was better than Renderman ?
“Better” is a loaded word. When you write your own renderer, you have a lot more control and a lot more support. Renderers at the time had not all converged on the same algorithms, so you could have a competitive advantage by writing a good one. PDI’s shader system was different than RenderMan’s and had some real advantages — compiled shaders, geometry & light shaders (not just materials), particles & particle shadowing, compositor integration, etc.. The renderer also needs to integrate into the pipeline deeply, so PDI’s renderer fits the PDI/DW pipeline better, whereas with RenderMan you have to try to mold the pipeline to fit the renderer in.
It wasn’t the renderer as much as the pipeline. The renderer is just one process in a stunning amount of complexity that must be managed. We may even agree that Renderman was better than the PDI renderer but there was so much much more.
Because all this animation tech is a moving target, each production's management chooses the software and versions of that software a production will use and then freeze it. So the studios already have in place a subsystem for every production to be running different software for different productions, doing the same jobs as other productions using other software. This allows some experimental renderer to be used in some sequences, and so on, as well as trials of all kinds of software too, such as AI tracking of camera paths, and the soft and hard objects in their view, AI assisted rendering, assisted color timing assistance and then experiments directly with AI video models in a hybrid pipeline.
Both companies each had their own renderer & rendering development team before the acquisition. And their own pipelines. A couple decades later, that’s still true.