Pixar is to release its 3D rendering software free for non-commercial use.
The 3D rendering software behind films such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc and Harry Potter is to be given away free for non-commercial use.
RenderMan, which is developed by Pixar, has faced increased competition from rival animation rendering programmes such as VRay and Arnold. Although Pixar, which is owned by Disney, produces its own films, it licenses RenderMan to rival studios. The company has also cut the price of its software for commercial use.
In a statement, the firm said it would release a free version of RenderMan "without any functional limitations, watermarking, or time restrictions". "Non-commercial RenderMan will be freely available for students, institutions, researchers, developers, and for personal use," it added.
Ian Dean, editor of computer graphics magazine 3D World, told the BBC the move "could be seen as a reaction to the rise of alternatives such as Arnold," but that Disney/Pixar are also looking to "build a community".
Related Stories
Furthermore, since we don't log IP addresses in access.log, and IP's run through Slash are turned into IPIDs, its hard to get an idea of where our userbase is (the general feeling is the vast majority of us are based in the United States, but even then, that's more because our peak hours of traffic are between 4 and 10 PM EST). We've wanted to get a better idea of what our traffic and userbase are, so we're asking permission from the community to install piWik, and embed its javascript tag in the footer of each page, which will give us a wide berth of solid information to work from.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by WillAdams on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:20PM
There needs to better software for 3D modeling / CAD --- this would be one way to foster use, but wouldn't interfere w/ their existing business.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:29PM
Between this and the recent Apple features, it's looking like Mr. Jobs is well and truly dead, and wasn't just faking it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Alfred on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:37PM
>Features
LOL
Yup Steve is dead, either good or bad, he is gone. But I wouldn't say he was opposed to free software (with some caveats).
But anyway, Disney only exists to make LOTS of money. We need to wait to see the other half of the plan is to see how this will be monetized.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:01PM
One of the terrible things that happens in this industry just a bit too often is that a project needs to scale up, but there's not enough people who have mastered the software available to join said project.
Renderman is not a product that is going to earn Disney or Pixar any significant money, it's not even the sort of thing where marketshare would somehow help them. What probably happened was they tried to do a lot of hiring on a project and there wasn't enough talent to fill the seats.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday June 04 2014, @10:56PM
It's something close to that. Universities are often teaching animation students on Autodesk tools like Maya, Mudbox, and Motion Builder as it comes in a packaged deal to the uni--often including Autocad. By releasing a free version of their software, Pixar hopes to increase market share of animators experienced with Renderman, thus pressuring other studios to purchase more commercial licenses from Pixar for future projects. It's much like how Microsoft practically gives away licenses to universities and OEMs to gain market share (for both development and end user markets), so businesses have more incentive to install Windows/VisualStudio on their computers.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 3, Funny) by lx on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:40PM
Better bring a stake and mallet just in case.
(Score: 2, Informative) by redneckmother on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:30PM
That's a scene I'd enjoy watching. I'll bring some steak and mullet (surf & turf).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:05PM
Another great free software that I will install right away... and never find the time to properly learn and master.
(Score: 3, Funny) by everdred on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:49PM
Hi. Are you me?
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:40PM
Yes, I am us. My name's Tyler.
Can you remind me our birthday and credit car details?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday June 05 2014, @01:11AM
Do note that the linked article doesn't specify the license. Perhaps its there, buried in a deeper link, perhaps it isn't.
This does not look to me like Free Software, but only free (i.e., gratis) software. I will admit that I can't really tell. They could be using a recognized Free Software license (possible AGPL3) and everything said would still be true, in a practical sense. (Because the AGPL requires that if you make downloads of output available, you also make available the original files.) That, however, is not the way to bet.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Adrian Harvey on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:44PM
I suspect they are keen to create a talent pool of people familiar with their application, so that movie studios will see it as the low-risk option to buy because it's easy to find and hire people familiar with the product. A similar strategy is followed by Microsoft on it's Office products with the Home Use Program which gives minions of a bulk license purchasing corporate overlord a almost-free copy [distribution charges are made] of the software said overlord buys. Student/Teacher copies of software from lots of vendors work similarly.
Movie studios typically have lots of contractors hired in for each production, and although many are retained for the next production, embedding your tool as the lingua franca required for animation work is probably a great way for them to ensure an ongoing revenue stream...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Alfred on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:51PM
I paid about $10 for office which is about what it is actually worth. It would be worth more if people knew how to not make death by powerpoint.
//soapbox
(Score: 1) by larku on Thursday June 05 2014, @12:32PM
Possibly, but this is just a renderer (plugs into a 3D modelling tool like Maya) so I expect they just want users to see how good their product is and pay for the commercial licence.
Just a guess.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:26PM
The linked article and the summary use the terms "freely available" and "free access"; the article also uses the term "free version".
Those descriptions are apt.
The BBC[1] article also uses the term "free software". That is INCORRECT.
This is NOT Free Software. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [gnu.org]
You are allowed to use their binaries, but source code is still closed and the product remains proprietary.
The correct term for the article and the summary to have used is freeware.
Another way to say that is gratis.
I would think that a site with a concentration of nerds such as this would use the proper terms.
(I'm now looking at you, editors).
In addition, the BBC[1] article does not mention under what operating system(s) the software will run.
Again, submitters (and editors), do find and include links to articles that contain the pertinent facts.
...meanwhile there is Pixie, [wikipedia.org] which is licensed under GPL and LGPL, is RenderMan-compliant, and is cross-platform.
.
[1] One reader here likes to rag on El Reg as a poor source of tech information.
I'll point out that BBC is WORSE.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:34PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @10:17PM
I've mentioned this issue hereabouts before. That's called Openwashing. [google.com]
It's one giant reason that Stallman hates the term Open Source and prefers the term Free Software (though the English word "free", with its multiple definitions, adds its own complications to the issue).
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by kevinl on Thursday June 05 2014, @10:04AM
Yes, it's used in academia all the time. Computational chemistry for example often comes as a source package to be compiled by the user, with free for academic use (but must be cited in papers) or costly for commercial use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06 2014, @08:30AM
If we're talking OSI certified open source, then no. OSI open source definition [opensource.org]
However, the concept open source is older than OSI, and people talk about e.g. open source intelligence meaning stuff you can find in the wild without spying secret shit. However talking about software and open source in this meaning is stupid, vague and misleading.
For a proper free software 3D renderer there is Blender [blender.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 06 2014, @06:35PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday June 04 2014, @11:56PM
..for connoisseurs of animated porn...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday June 05 2014, @04:06AM
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 06 2014, @02:41AM
More than one of us, and for damn good reason. And not just for tech news.
BBC I dunno about though; I wasn't really aware they did tech reporting...I mean obviously they would as a global news org, but c'mon, would anyone really expect them to be GOOD at it? Their strength is world news and politics...