Blender & Redshift Integration

I’ve been a Redshift user for 2 years with C4D and I can most certainly confirm they are working on it and have been for a while. The devs have spoken on numerous occasions about progress and it’s much further along than people think. There’s just the issue of getting the IPR feedback better before they’re going to offer an Alpha preview.

Blender maybe changing quickly but so is Redshift and the transition to Redshift 3.0 has been much longer than anyone expected. Maxon acquired Redshift which also caused delays to development.

Personally I’m more interested in the Hybrid rendering modes of Prorender than Redshift as I think they have the potential to be as game changing as Eevee and the high quality mode offer similar image quality and speed to Redshift but for free.

While the Redshift devs have spoken about Metal for Mac only CUDA is supported on PC so AMD GPUs are still out of luck. They’ve spoken about Vulkan compute but it sounds like they’re only just beginning to look at researching it.

Looks like my belief is gone with the wind… :slight_smile:
And I too have a similar feeling about RPR. Especially since it’s H/W agnostic, dev. already working on supporting USD. Also, Vulkan allows multi-GPU support.

The best thing about Redshift is the speed but I don’t rate the image quality as high, you really need to make complex shader networks to get really nice renders. To get the speed they make compromises in image quality, mostly they’re well hidden but sometimes these compromises show up in your renders like weird image texture aliasing.

The Redshift devs always underestimate how long a feature is going to take to finish, if they give a date it’s best policy to add 6 months to a year and you won’t be disappointed. We were promised Toon Shading over a year ago and it has yet to arrive.

I’ve always like ProRender’s image quality but it’s speed leaves a lot to be desired. I hope the High quality Hybrid RPR mode will be a good balance of image quality and speed for rendering. I’m sure I’d use it a lot.

Yes! Redshift and Blender !

From my personal standpoint, going back to biased, rasterized rendering is less productive… as noted, too much fiddling with settings, shaders, lighting, … even lots of work in post :roll_eyes:. I much rather let machine render unbiased, path tracing a bit longer and in the meantime dedicate time to prepare for secondary stage or spend time to get a meal, do the exercise :relieved: staying fit making quality imagery while enjoying quality life is quite rewarding

NOW, on the other hand just do the EEVEE, E-Cycle, Octane… and keep waiting… also for the “Landslide” (aka Lavina). :wink:

1 Like

Depends on what you do. If you do stills, i would agree. If you are doing animation - i would strongly disagree. If you can cut 50% of the rendertime by simply investing half an hour to optimize your rendering, it can make a huge difference. If you have to render lots of frames the difference can be days.

Pretty much every movie and visual fx studio came to the same conclusion. HW is cheap. Man hours are expensive.


I’ve given up on Redshift for Blender the developments in ProRender 2.0 have me backing a new horse.

The big performance lead Redshift used to have has been eroded very quickly. Their unified sampler that cleaned up the noise has been more than matched by the Intel denoiser. There is also far more work for the user in setting up the render which if done poorly can result in excessive render times or ugly images. With newer GPUs and advanced denoising techniques the render time difference to getting a clean image is now negligible and ProRender certainly produces beautiful images without a lot of user effort which matters in production. Redshift is a game engine without a lot of complex shading networks. ProRender is also a drop in replacement for Cycles so everything is familiar it remains to be seen if Redshift will be or will limit the user to just Redshift nodes or it will feel like a native renderer like ProRender does.

I’m sure AMD will have more ray tracing hardware tech to show in the new year and with their own ray tracing tech ProRender will surely get even more performance. I cannot wait to see what hardware AMD bring next year, I’m certainly going to build a Threadripper based system and hope there’s a pair of nVidia killing Navi GPUs ready to power ProRender into 2020.

The other positive for ProRender is that it works on multiple platforms and is hardware agnostic. Redshift as of today only works on CUDA, they’ve announced no plans for PC AMD support only Mac Metal. No one knows what performance that will provide either.

No other render is offering what ProRender offers in terms of hybrid rendering and full path tracing from Eevee with ray tracing, biased rendering to full tracing in a consistent front end. @bsavery and team keep pushing hard your effort is much appreciated.


So here’s Redshift working on Blender finally !

Link :


Can you elaborate a little more regarding ProRender and Blender?

ProRender runs pretty slow with my RTX 2080Ti, compare to E-Cycles.

I think E-Cycles is excellent, wickedly fast and with RTX it makes Redshift redundant. Redshift has lost it’s main selling point, its speed. Quality wise Redshift isn’t great.

Prorender is a different beast, the hybrid rendering modes make it very interesting, the ability to render in Eevee style with ray traced effects right up to full path tracing in the one renderer is a huge workflow game-changer. ProRender is also Free and the savings in render licences can be put directly into hardware which is what I intend to do and build a ProRender farm when AMD’s new GPUs arrive.

It’s buggy on nVidia at the moment and I cannot render out in Hybrid mode but I’m sure that’s going to get fixed soon. But TBH I’m looking for a way to get out of the nVidia market and I’m looking forward to Big Navi GPUs. I’m sure any ray tracing features will be immediately supported by ProRender and it’ll see a huge boost in performance like Cycles and E-Cycles do currently with RTX.

On Redshift, I do not like the people behind it. I’ve had private communication with one of the devs and he’s an absolute prick. Redshift over promise and under deliver features and progress has become extremely slow. Redshift have been promoting features like OSL, random walk SSS, Toon Shader for several years now, they get us to expect these features then they’re a no show. But keep paying your maintenance while you wait!!!

I’m not criticising the developer doing the Blender plugin BTW, they seem to be doing an excellent job.

1 Like

Why not download it and try it? It’s free from here,

1 Like

Indeed. Thanks!

nice this is great news indeed

1 Like

I’m still interested in testing Redshift speed versus E-cycles. E-cycles has the advantage in that everything in Blender just works with it, with a third party renderer like ProRender or Redshift you need to use their shaders and add-ons probably won’t work with them.

I just tried ProRender 2.2 yesterday night, it was a bit disappointing, lots of crashes. denoising in viewport = black - maybe it will be a great production renderer someday, but in its current state its too buggy and crash prone to be taken seriously. I really like its machine learning denoising and the vulkan viewport rendering which was faster than OpenCL final frame rendering, too bad we can’t use Vulkan for final frame rendering.

Well this is a redshift thread, but you can, select the quality setting (to med/high/low not full) and hit f12

1 Like

The good new is, it’s a regular Add-on, not a separate build, for this reason alone it beats the Octane integration



I have used Redshift in Maya, and the only reason is because I was looking for an alternative to Nvidia’s Mental Ray when it went the way of the dodo. I have to say, Redshift produced quick, great results.

What I want to know is, how does it compare to Cycles in Blender in both speed/quality? I imagine, a lot of the work lands on the user for creating a good render, but I imagine, Redshift might have some cool features that Cycles lacks, and vice versa.

Anyone know?