You are making this into an argument that is not only irrelevant to this subject, is also presumptuous and condescending.

This subject is to do only and purely with technology. It does not presume and can not presume any of the other arbitrary factors you are trying to bring to the table.

Further it is not even all that original, the old “tool or the artist” argument.

Really, like this subject has not been debated?

Further it is not even an argument that holds up within “professional” circles.

Technology is changing. Content Creation tool makers know this and are constantly working to make better tools for artists, and stay ahead of the competition.

The most purely objective argument you can make here is about the current state of technology as it is the only subject that is on topic in my opinion.

If don't agree with my assessment of the current state of technology I can respectfully disagree.

And that is as far as I care to take it.

Fred Trétout
It's a nice offer to give opportunity for independent artist to work with Houdini.
But today freelancer do not only create visual for TV or web.
Projection mapping, fulldome theater, VR oculus/vive… expand and explode resolution and we need to follow the movement.

I understand the limitation of budget and third party renderers but not the resolution for independent artist.

To bring it back to what was actually said.

This is only about technology and what is expected of an interdependent.

In today's market. Not the market of 10 years ago.

RichardCulver
Further it is not even an argument that holds up within “professional” circles.

Which professional circle doesn't it hold up in? Skill-sets are arbitrary to only those whom don't have them.

As a pro, I work in HD all the time, 2K gets up-rezed to 4K.. but keep beating the 4K drum, as you say it will come as a standard, but do you actually think you broke any news to anyone… it is as prescient as the sun will rise tomorrow.

No. Skill sets are arbitrary in this discussion which is about technology and technological standards.

The same argument is not relevant in a professional circle when discussing software and technology.

People try of course. So good luck with that. Some people will bite.

But I have been around way too long to take that bait.

Nice try though.

I get you aren't comfortable with the ‘limitation’ of Houdini indie for $99 whopping US dollars, but tell me, what would you expect for that price, given what is given is STELLAR imho, vs what you would get say for other products on the market, maya for example, there is just zero comparison unless you go by the month with maya, but then I doubt that would serve your needs well.

In my further opinion, if you are here complaining about 4k, then I have to wonder about your actual credentials.

I prob. make far far less $ than you do and I am here trying out Houdini, not aruging about what it doesn't have, being overjoyed what it does have, and realizing if I work hard enough, find help and maybe even get a tad lucky, that over time if I need it, I WILL be able to afford full Houdini.

I would never have had to ask such questions as you have and I'd be further along due to that I suspect.

You get what you pay for in this capitalistic country we live in, for better or worse, and unless you want to use ‘choose open source free blah’, then asking for more to me seems a bit disrespectful, but hey, asking never hurt I guess and time will tell if its done you any good

Me, I think Houdini's offering is outstanding and shocking given the alternatives, the only trouble for me atm, is having ‘less’ respect for them atm since right out of the box, apprentice can't even start up due to a weird machine error.

cu
nl

The elephant in the room is how do you budget for 4K rendering if you have ‘no money’ :? Good luck with that.

As much as the talk of a technological standard, there is none that I am aware of, none talk of having to render at 4k. Delivery may be at 4k, but that is not a render standard.

So, much better than of walls of text saying this and that, please post the link to the so-called tech standard that demands a 4K render. Thanks!

You miss the point.
For me the indie version, should have more expensive but with no limitation resolution (like 600$). Apprendice is free and you can render animation at 720p ! wow.

Just an exemple : Tomorrow you have to do an animation for an oculus rift. Your projection camera is setup to Polar ration 2:1 and you get maximum 1920*960, it could be ok for facebook vr only. Sad no?

No disrespectful here, i love side-fx. Since softimage died i only believe at C4D/Houdini. I learn TouchDesigner and Houdini at the same time and it help me a lot. One day i will get the 4500$ but at the moment i can't invest so much in this topnotch software, because i only use it when i can't do it with C4D, and i am to slow in wire connection ^^

I don't care about 4k. some time i want to be able to render 3000*256.
Of course i can hack and render with multiple camera, and compose it but it is not the point.

Fred Trétout
You miss the point.

Sadly I've seen pretty much all these arguments before, but in the photography industry. I'll leave it at that as I guess everyone finds there own way through.

Good luck all!

I don't care about 4k. some time i want to be able to render 3000*256.
Of course i can hack and render with multiple camera, and compose it but it is not the point.

Than you buy full version. If you do not have money for that than find cheaper alternative, there are some great open source alternatives.

This is just a feedback thread.

I think the case has been made clear. There are a number of people who for their own good reason would like to see the render limit increased.

And those reasons have already been made clear and there is no reason to repeat or clarify.

And there are a number of people - for whatever reason - do not want the render limit to be increased. Those reasons have been made clear.

So be it.

I'd like to see it increased to 4K. Not to an unlimited render, just 4K. It is reasonable.

It is just feedback. That's all.

I'll add that I think 4k is reasonable considering that I'd like to be able to generate stuff as texture maps for games sometimes.

That's interesting.

Can you explain your workflow a little more?

And I can concur, my game clients expect 4K these days. And that has changed from only a few years ago when 2K was acceptable. But all my clients now have switched to 4K.

Of course this is not intended as a direct co-relation to rendering output images. It is a different animal.

But it is a barometer for changing resolution demands in the last 2-3 years.

And yes, if I was rendering out images to be used as maps in a game. 4K would be the requirement. And these are indie companies not A list games of course.

Edit. However it should be noted that this is 4096 X4096 rather than what is usually considered 4K for digital video widescreen.

So I am kind of interested in particulars to your workflow.

Well, mostly I'll use if for ramps or noise. UE4 doesn't provide useful parameters for those two things in materials (noise is pretty expensive), but it's simple enough to create them in cops.

Textures of course work better when they're specific resolutions…. a 1920 wide texture's not so good for mipmaps.

I've created gradients for use in a texture that are 4096x1 though. Gives you a nice smooth interpolation for material effects that need to change over time.

Right now, with the resolution hindrance, you'd have to render out a few images and then stitch them together into one in a different package. So the resolution limitation isn't that much of an actual limit for textures… but it is an extra step that it would be nice to not have to bother with, especially for something so trivial as an image with only 4096 pixels

Cool. So I guess what I am not clear on is why you would be rendering this in Houdini?

This is not a challenge but more of a clarification. I mean exactly what are you setting up to render that would be beneficial to use a 3D tool such as this as opposed to another maybe 2D Solution?

Because the less tools in my pipeline, the better.

There is no limit on rendering single frame. Limitation is for animation.

That's cool. Good to know. And Allegro, I hear you.

Just in case there is still some life in this horse, I'm going to flog it

First of all: Indie is the most value for money I've come across next to blender .
At this price one can't really bitch about anything!
I do however feel that there is an opportunity for sidefx to create an option for a part of the market they currently don't fully cater for:
“Freelancers with their own software and hardware working in advertising”.
I operate in this space and the problem for me with indie is Mantra.
Mantra is a great render for large studios with render farms and departments dedicated to tweaking and optimizing the crap out of it.
Unfortunately I don't have that luxury.
On most jobs I'm required to deliver final renders with client changes within a week or two of starting the job.
In the past I've used Softimage with Arnold or redshift, to be able to do this.
The external render limitation in indie is what bothers me.
Right now I need to alembic everything out, import back into some other package and render there.
Every time a client makes a change, I get to export alembics again.
This is annoying and expensive, but somehow still faster than trying to get mantra to finish on time.
It doesn't make sense to me that we can render in other renders via alembic, but not inside houdini.
It just means that I now spend less time in houdini, doing things outside of houdini, the painful way, cause I can't render it in the ridiculous time most of my clients expect.
I've considered buying just standard houdini, but then I would still need to buy octane on top of that to get gpu rendering.
Also I need a solution for fluids and dynamics.

What I would like to see is a product between indie and FX, without the external renderer limitation. (keep the income limit)
This would mean that I can focus on getting really good with houdini, rather than diluting my skills between other packages.
I know that learning more software will benefit me in the long run, but the day has only so many hours, and my family has to eat.
I would gladly pay more for this option.
I've paid for 2 indies, and a indie engine, but even 3 mantras can't keep up with one octane/redshift/cycles for the majority of the types of shots I work on.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would support an option similar to what I've described above if it was available.
Thanks
Gerbrand

I totally agree. Another fantastic alternative would be fast GPU rendering option in Mantra.

Gerbrand
Just in case there is still some life in this horse, I'm going to flog it

First of all: Indie is the most value for money I've come across next to blender .
At this price one can't really bitch about anything!
I do however feel that there is an opportunity for sidefx to create an option for a part of the market they currently don't fully cater for:
“Freelancers with their own software and hardware working in advertising”.
I operate in this space and the problem for me with indie is Mantra.
Mantra is a great render for large studios with render farms and departments dedicated to tweaking and optimizing the crap out of it.
Unfortunately I don't have that luxury.
On most jobs I'm required to deliver final renders with client changes within a week or two of starting the job.
In the past I've used Softimage with Arnold or redshift, to be able to do this.
The external render limitation in indie is what bothers me.
Right now I need to alembic everything out, import back into some other package and render there.
Every time a client makes a change, I get to export alembics again.
This is annoying and expensive, but somehow still faster than trying to get mantra to finish on time.
It doesn't make sense to me that we can render in other renders via alembic, but not inside houdini.
It just means that I now spend less time in houdini, doing things outside of houdini, the painful way, cause I can't render it in the ridiculous time most of my clients expect.
I've considered buying just standard houdini, but then I would still need to buy octane on top of that to get gpu rendering.
Also I need a solution for fluids and dynamics.

What I would like to see is a product between indie and FX, without the external renderer limitation. (keep the income limit)
This would mean that I can focus on getting really good with houdini, rather than diluting my skills between other packages.
I know that learning more software will benefit me in the long run, but the day has only so many hours, and my family has to eat.
I would gladly pay more for this option.
I've paid for 2 indies, and a indie engine, but even 3 mantras can't keep up with one octane/redshift/cycles for the majority of the types of shots I work on.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would support an option similar to what I've described above if it was available.
Thanks
Gerbrand