Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Vray?

32 posts in this topic

Posted

im thinking of upgrading to a decent 3d rendering system.

i use GI and AO otgether more recent and having to wait 2-3 minutes per frame

(when you have a 30 second sequence) is not too handy with deadlines and use

of time.

is vray any good?

i have a friend who uses finalrender on the pc, i want to buy this for mac but they are taking sooooooooooooooooo long

about finalising / releasing it. can anyone shed any light on the matter (pun not intended)

is vray the way forward at the moment or is there any other software that will drop my high end renders down a peg or two?

does anyone know how much more performance vray has rendering GI and AO over the standard c4d renders?

look forward to hearing about this.

graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Vray is good for some things. I havent found it to be very fast. You can try a trial for free. I dont think it plays well in animation, mostly for stills. It does an awesome job when you learn how it all works. There is a steep learning curve to get the most out Vray. You have to use Vray specfic materials or convert C4d materials to Vray (via a plugin) you must use a Vray camera and Vray lights, There is a lot to learn but does some awesome still images. There is a forum Vrayforc4d google it. It is expensive too. C4d r11 AR is awesome if you learn how to use it and set up lights and create materials, Hell it is awesome if you use auto lights, Very simple to learn also there is a tut flotaing in the members section to show you how to cut Gi rendering in 1/2 if you so choose to use it. Good Luck, Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Final render is very good and very unsupported at the moment,

FR uses natively c4d materials and has its own material xpresso editor which is easy enough to learn.

plus it has corner smoothing in its shaders, so no objects has sharp edges in your renders, no other render or shader has that.

learning curve is kinda low for FR

Vray is a better engine with exhaustingly high learning curve and waiting times for your renders.

If you go vray, you'll need a very fast computer with dual or better cpu. (most say its worth it)

If you go FR, single cpu with 2gig of ram is kosher enough. (no very much use by many)

I personally like either FR for its ease of use and uses cinema mats natively end get near perfect render, not sure on the animation though.

From what I've read and heard vray is better with animating

Or you can just use cinema's render engine, which is pretty good by itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm Working only with vray - great results - stills and animation. It takes time to learn all the little things inside, but you can achieve beatiful results. It's not cheap, but we are getting free updates until version 1.5 (which will be exactly like the max version-now we are at 1.1 and some things are missing)...

As said before, you can download a demo for free, and play with it a little....

This is the official forum: http://vrayforc4d.com/forum/index.php

This is official site: http://www.vrayforc4d.com/

And this is the manual: http://vrayforc4d.com/manual/

Peace

Kobi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the biggest disadvantage of the current AR3 is the post effects. None work very well, and what's even worse, they cannot be combined (DoF, MB, Glow, etcetera). So I think this is one of the best reasons to switch to vray. GI and AO is great in Cinema, even in full animation (just don't use the full animation mode). I don't think you can get better rendertimes with vray in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As usual when the subject of Vray comes up there's a lot of miss information doing the rounds.

First off, Vray produces spectacular animations. Have a look at this, 100% CGI done in Vray

http://swaystudioftp.com/Pontiac_Mine_PR.htm#

This is the Max version, but the render engine is identical, only the bit that joins the render engine to the host application differs. This would be possible in the C4d version (I just like this example!).

Second is the materials issue. This one is summed up by a comment someone made here some time ago which went: "Vray would be perfect if only it could use C4D native materials..." That kind of sentiment can only come from people who have never used Vray. Once you get over having to convert your legacy projects (which is not much of a pain in itself, and often you simply replace rather than convert), and spend a few weeks starting projects from fresh with Vray materials you'll never want to go back to native C4d materials. They seem incredibly crude once you've got used to Vray's.

Another one that often pops up is that Vray doesn't work with Body Paint ("... it's a deal breaker!"). I use it with Body Paint all the time, there's a simple work round.

And speed. Your render speed will always be dependent on what you're asking your render engine to do. You think 2-3 minutes is too long? The current job I'm working on is running between 40 minutes and 1 hour ten a frame for a one minute animation. That's why God gave us renderfarms. If 2-3 minutes is a stretch I'm wondering if the animations you're working on even need GI in the first place. I take it we're not talking about stuff like the car ad above. And if you really don't need GI then save yourself a lot of agro and avoid. In general I think Vray is a little slower than FR (but produces much nicer images) and is much faster than AR. It produces nicer images than AR, although the gap has narrowed somewhat since the introduction of AR3. Also AR3's non GI renders are pretty fast and when you factor in how much cheaper AR is than Vray you have to take a minute and ask yourself if you really need whatever extra Vray brings to the table.

Vray isn't perfect, but none of them are. And this is another thing that happens in these threads. For some reason Vray's failings are cited as deal breakers for a lot of people, yet AR's failings seem to get a free pass. In one sense, as AR is made by MAXON itself, AR's failings are less acceptable. And as for the learning curve, most people's troubles come from the fact that it works in a different way to AR so you're essentially an old dog trying to learn new tricks.

I love Vray and use it all the time. Nevertheless, I'd still advise people to think long and hard before shelling out. Do you really need whatever it can do above and beyond AR (what else could you do with all that money?)? Do you even need GI in your animations? And don't forget to ask ourself if you even need AR - C4D turns out fine renders straight out of the box without even resorting to AR...

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

a still attached showing my result with AR and AO and one without.

if anyone knows how i can achieve this look and not use GI and AO then i would love to know. its the little thigns like the GI reflection

in the ground and the solid crisp (bright colour) that i have not achieved with basic AR. if i get AR3 willi see any improvemetn on 2-3

minutes with these settings (attached also).

BTW - the render is Best and Animation 1024_576

look forward to hearing if there if an alternative to GI and AO with this kind of look

Graham

BTW the pontiac work is beautiful and im def not working to that level but as the examples show (picture 26 being the none GI and AO)

its simple things that im not getting such as shadow under car and the nice white refelctions on the number to the rear

i think i need some help with the relighting to cut time. i have tried some AE grading / adjustments but its not looking as the desired frame

is looking

post-33999-1238490695_thumb.png

post-33999-1238490707_thumb.png

post-33999-1238490949_thumb.png

post-33999-1238490964_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not your render engine or Gi that's the problem it's your basic lighting set up that's amiss. What you have in the first pic is easily achievable without even using AR. How are you lighting this?

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You know.....if your just doing simple scenes that are not to complicated, you should just try omni light with shadows.

may a mixture of spot and omni light, just a couple though with soft shadows on.

I think your trying way to hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i have a sun and sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's your problem. Here you go. No GI, AO or even AR. Just the most basic C4D render. With a sphere for reflections: 56 seconds. And you could get that down by dropping the resolution of the image used on the sphere. Also much of the time comes from having a blurry reflection on the floor. Without the reflective sphere: 5 seconds. It's not an exact recreation of yours, just a quickie to give you the idea.

Cheers

Karl

And here's the images...

K

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

thanks i'll have a look at that

:thisrocks::) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice explanation, Karl.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the speed increase in AR3 isnt with GI.

you'll only get fast render speeds from normal lighting (with lights)

Gi speeds are basically the same speed as older AR but with better quality renders.

so forget about getting faster Gi speeds in AR3.

but having said that some scene will render Gi faster and others slower

Edited by dataflow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The faster renders don't come from AR3 but from the engine built into C4D R11.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sorry mister technical.

i was referring to the render engine which most people refer to as AR3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

im just not getting the same look.

the shadowing under the forklift is perfect in GI and AO i cant match it in normal lighting. its the shadow thats not getting there.

here is a scene with the materials and lighting i had originally. im finding it hard to create the same lighting with that really nice finish

tried some omni but the shadow would not work under the vehicle without drifting towards area lighting

im not doing to well on this

Graham

sorry its the bigger of the two which i added some text into instead of the block

i cant use the models in this one im posting

graham

WNC_30tvc_shadow_wrong.c4d

WNC_30tvc_shadow_wrong.c4d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why aren't you just using my lighting and adjusting to taste? All the shadows that you see in my two examples are a result of the lights I've used.

data, just about everyone buys AR by default so I don't think most people realise that AR just provides bells and whistles and the bulk of the rendering capability is built in to C4D. I certainly don't think that people refer to the built in capabilities as AR3, they definitely see that as a completely separate module. I'm on R11 but I don't have AR3 (as I use Vray most of the time) and, in the context of this thread, I think it's worth pointing out that you don't need to shell out for AR3 to get Ray Trace speed increases.

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sorry not wanting to offend you the lighting you suggested is great.

im just having trouble getting the shadow under the object right.

g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you want a more diffuse shadow switch all to Soft and turn them down to maybe 60%.

Not offended. :thisrocks:

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why aren't you just using my lighting and adjusting to taste? All the shadows that you see in my two examples are a result of the lights I've used.

data, just about everyone buys AR by default so I don't think most people realise that AR just provides bells and whistles and the bulk of the rendering capability is built in to C4D. I certainly don't think that people refer to the built in capabilities as AR3, they definitely see that as a completely separate module. I'm on R11 but I don't have AR3 (as I use Vray most of the time) and, in the context of this thread, I think it's worth pointing out that you don't need to shell out for AR3 to get Ray Trace speed increases.

Cheers

Karl

i have never seen anyone say eg... "the new built in render engine is faster".

they always/most of the time say "the new AR3 is much faster"

im not saying you aren't right, that people shouldn't say AR3 is faster.

but its much easier saying "AR3" then "built in render engine"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But you'd have to look long and hard to find anyone other than me who's running R11 without AR3 so most of the time I think everyone assumes AR3 is where the speed hike has come from. I don't think I've seen anyone engage in any kind of discussion about plain vanilla R11 renders. And it's worth noting that the renders I'm getting out of R11, aside from not being able to do stuff like DOF, are better than the ones I get out of 10.5 with AR.

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

AR is great for GI and the use of GI with few exceptions is for people that dont light a scene. And Karl you don't seem to be one of those people.

I on the other hand am one of those people and sadly I dont use Gi since it flicklers in 10.5.

/Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i do thank you all for your input.

i ended up using AO but i adjusted the materials alot and voila! (attached) this took 47 seconds

and looks as good as the 3 minute render.

i found it was more the materials than light.

i did leave the sky and sun in. and left the blur reflection up at 35 % in places (the joy of a 8 core and 16gb)

and in the end just attched a 22 % area light to the camera.

good day for lighting, thanks for all the help again.

G (happy man) :signthankspin::) :) :)

post-33999-1238521167_thumb.png

post-33999-1238521191_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure why you would use AO and GI together. AO doesn't really do anything that GI doesn't do, it just fakes GI. Plus AO is very slow. Without GI, your sky is not really adding much except to reflections. Attaching a light to the camera is the same as using the autolight,

For the type of scene you are doing, turn off GI and AO. Use 3 area lights with soft or area shadows instead. Try Karl's lighting set up.

Edited by stevehewitt1950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.