RenderMan standard
22-Aug-90 11:20:31
Sb: #37574-RenderMan standard
Fm: Ken Loss-Cutler 76106,3416
To: jeff brown 75145,1441
Jeff: I guess you sent me the message to "Rick" for my feedback. The
considerations of a larger firm/machine that are discussed are valid in my
opinion. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that timing doesn't seem to be in
sync for the development of PC-based hi-end graphics when most who already
have that look are still desperately trying to pay for what they have. It
is, though, a classic conflict in this business.
No one, NOBODY, should be buying equipment or software with a business plan
that assumes more than a two-year payback. There are simply NO exceptions
to this rule, in my opinion. Larger houses argue that violating this rule
has been the only way to get their hands on the look their clients have
demanded over the last few years. That has, until recently, been pretty
true.
The RenderMan handwriting, however, has been on the wall for AT LEAST two
years now, and anyone seriously considering cost-effective hi-end looks has
been well-advised to fence-sit. Those who purchased prior to this time
period are probably doing alright assuming that their initial business
plans were accurate and justified by their client base. I think its often
just a matter of fortune. And those who are now in their buying cycles are
the ones who will benefit. Even now, though, good arguments can be made
for sitting on the fence at least one more year as far as RenderMan is
concerned.
The software may become released soon for a variety of software products,
but the attribute files may not be fully developed for a while to come. It
might be somewhat akin to having had an Amiga 1000 in 1987. You knew the
power was there, but it had not yet been really tapped. And as for the
$$$/sec. on animations: The client market has become considerably more
sophisticated in their awareness of value. a $1000/sec. surcharge over
what a TARGA system can provide is seldom viewed favorably in any but the
broadcast market.
Another rule of thumb, I think, is: NEVER consider the system's salesman's
estimate of cost/finished second when computing your 2-year payback. You
know the one about the difference between a car salesman and a graphics
system salesman, don't you?