It’s expensive, yes, but according to everyone who owns one, well worth the investment. Despite the name, it is beloved by professionals and regular cooks alike. On the lowest end, there’s the Vitamix One for $250 - a no-frills-but-still-powerful option if you don’t need or want a bunch of settings, buttons, and attachments. That being said, if you don’t use a blender with a ton of regularity, can’t splurge on something so pricey, or are living in a small space that doesn’t accommodate big appliances, there are plenty of other options with ringing endorsements to back them up.Ĭapacity: 64 ounces | Function: Automatic | Size: 8.5” x 8.5” x 17.25” Many of the people I spoke with own various models - it is, hands down, the most lauded brand across the board, making the kinds of pieces that will last you an actual lifetime. But there are also a lot to choose from, and in an attempt to narrow down the wide and overwhelming field, I asked a bunch of pros and avid cooks about the ones they rely on in their own kitchens.įirst things first: Vitamix reigns supreme in the blender universe. They’re truly so useful, as much of a staple for many people as a stove or microwave. To get a comparable level of noise between the two images - the one with the translucent diffuser took 4x as many samples to render (600 vs 150) - so there is a massive performance gain to be had going down the emission shader route.Blenders can purée vegetables into soup, crush nuts into butter, whir dressings and sauces into silky emulsifications, chop ingredients into salsas, and, of course, make smoothies. The biggest difference between them is performance. This falloff could be easily simulated using a radial gradient however. There is a slight falloff towards the edges of the translucent shaded diffuser, whereas the emission one is completely uniform. The second image - the light was removed and the shader on the diffuser was changed to be a white emission shader instead. The first image uses a point lightsource inside the box - with a diffuser made from a squashed cube with a white translucent shader applied. I did some testing on this a few years back and found that if you are wanting to simulate light behind a translucent diffuse material, it was really better to make the diffuser itself emit light, rather than trying to emit light from behind it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |