Alembic must have slipped right past me. On render farms, now that I have an RTX card, I wouldn't use one. I just do the standalone IRAY and go to bed.Some scenes take a couple of days. A render farm would take hours to upload, who knows how long to render, and then cost me money.

You work on your animation  100% in iClone, export it to the standalone renderer, and IRAY renders it.

What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.

RAG DOLL COLLISION ANIMATIONS FOR ICLONE 8 & 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ghost Origins

My latest Feature length film created with Iclone.

My Sci- Fi Graphic Novel on Amazon: https://a.co/d/9k3cwoY

My IMDB listing
Anabran Abdhul Quarnain - IMDb

The iClone to Blender pipeline doesn't interest me. iClone to iRay is actually more on the nose. 

You work on your animation  100% in iClone, export it to the standalone renderer, and IRAY renders it.

What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.

Hell, I'd even take an iClone to DAZ bridge and render in 3dlight for some projects.. It seems that industry-wide, they make it too involved to try new renderers. I bought $200 worth into Indigo. It was a waste of time. I tried Octane. Waste of time, but worked. 

iClone has all the best tools for getting an animation together, but except for IRAY sort of chokes on output.

The following video was a serious PAIN to do with DAZ, and I abandoned it. It would be easy in iClone, but output like this would be next to impossible with iClone without paying a bunch extra and then learning quite a bit. 

Now you are just having a go at me Rick. You know it too.

TO make that more clear, real photons hit the woman and bounce off of her.  They are focused onto an image plane by a lens.  They do this in a unique and objective way creating a unique and completely deterministically defined image.  There is no need to invoke quantum weirdness in this sort of set up. The math is completely classical.  There is only one image that can be formed by a given lens at a given distance from that woman in that light.

Objective realism would be to reproduce what was on the image plane as closely as possible.  This isn't even physics at that point as much as math.

It is absolutely true that someone could have all sorts of things going on that could affect how their brains interpret the signals from their retinas (their image plane). There are all sorts of things about how that might make them feel.  These things are subjective, but art works because most people share the same internal wiring more than less.  So yes, adding a blue filter evokes coldness.  Still the completely subjective emotional response to an image is another discussion.  Cues we pick up from expressions and body language are a great example of that discussion.  If you want to say evoking that emotional response is where the art really lies, I am inclined to agree.  I AM NOT WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW THOUGH!

we are making progress in getting you to acknowledge objective and subjective reality,  my job is done.  Tough gig, but i love you :kiss:

• My Spotify  My Twitter  My Twitch
  
• My NFT    My Marketplace My Blog
  
• Music Sync Licensing

☯🐉

"To define Tao is to defile it" - Lao Tzu

You aren't wrong... but there is a difference between objective and subjective.  You keep confusing the two.

No I don't.  That is so pretentious, I don't even know where to begin.  Certain things actually are an exact science.  The way lenses and rods and cones work for example.  The optics of resolution and color temperatures are another example.  These are not subjective. A 2d projection from 3d is not subjective. None of these things are subjective.  While our perceptions may be fuzzy, the real world is not.

SO for the 50th time, I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE ART WITH THESE EXERCISES.  I AM TRYING TO LEARN TECHNIQUE.  IF YOU DON'T SEE ART, DON'T BE SURPRISED BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL STUDIES AIMED AT IMPROVING TECHNIQUE.  

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT PHOTOREALISM = ART.  NEVER SAID THAT.  NEVER EVEN IMPLIED THAT.  OF COURSE THE PERCEPTION OF ART IS SUBJECTIVE AND PSYCHOLOGY IS KEY.  I AM NOT WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.  

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY, PLEASE STOP PROJECTING YOUR BIASES IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHAT WAS NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED BECOMES A NARRATIVE THAT NEVER EXISTED.

you want our help in getting better renders,  why do you need to get through to me ? lol -  not logical.

Your idea on objective is also completely false.   2 people can see 1 person in completely different ways.

A cold day enhances the element of blue in an image,   thus the person who is scared and cold experiences a different reality to "That guy" that pretends it's not cold and he's not at all scared.

• My Spotify  My Twitter  My Twitch
  
• My NFT    My Marketplace My Blog
  
• Music Sync Licensing

☯🐉

"To define Tao is to defile it" - Lao Tzu

Realism is a concrete emulation of the real physical world.  It is objective.  What people make of any image emotionally is purely subjective - and obviously very important.  Relativity has nothing to do with it.  I am not discounting what you are saying about art in general.  I am not discounting what anyone's reaction to a specific bit of art might be. 

I don't know how to say this in a way that will get through. I know I have tried a dozen times.

 I am trying to make more realistic renders. I am focusing on tools and technique to do that first and foremost.  This is a technical and objectively defined goal. All of this other philosophizing does not help me reach my present goals.  Faffing on about ill defined subjective concepts that were never my point does not help me get better at what I want to do.  I am not saying that art is only about being photorealistic.  I have never said that. I have said, many, many times, that I want to learn more technique to make photorealism.  

If that is my goal, telling me why you don't think realism is important, for whatever reason, is not productive.  If you are telling me that there is more to art than realism, yes, yes of course there is.  That was never in debate and I honestly don't understand how anyone thought it was in debate.

Everything else you are talking about is important, but not the current point.  It has never been the goal or the point in anything I have put up here.  I know I've said this to you on threads and in private many times.  What am I saying, or not saying, that this is somehow still unclear?