Jump to content




Photo

R13 Physical Renderer And Camera


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#21 Fastbee

Fastbee
  • Regular Member
  • 1,586 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 10:35 PM

I see. My mistake. Caustics do work when using lights, but they don't seem to work with HDRIs unless the old GI engine is used.

#22 Fastbee

Fastbee
  • Regular Member
  • 1,586 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 10:51 PM

After some more tests the physical render does not seem to calculate the caustics right when using an HDRI. It also take a lot longer for the old GI engine to work with the physical render engine.
Here are some examples.
1m19s physical render with HDRI
c4d caustics physical render 1m19s.jpg
1s standard render with HDRI. The caustics look way better here.
c4d caustics standard render 1s.jpg

#23 3DKiwi

3DKiwi

    Cafe Founder

  • Admin
  • 41,838 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: Feilding, New Zealand

Posted 08 September 2011 - 11:25 PM

mmm, I think the Physical one looks real whereas the Std renderer looks overdone and clearly CG.

3DKiwi

www.3dkiwi.co.nz - My personal site    My Cinema 4D Vimeo channel


#24 Fastbee

Fastbee
  • Regular Member
  • 1,586 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: USA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 06:56 AM

Here is a render from unbiased render engine Thea Render.
It shows that not only is the standard render engine closer, but it is surprisingly close to perfect.
thea2 caustics comparison 7m42s.jpg

#25 morpheus

morpheus

    C4D GOD....'s illiterate cousin!

  • Regular Member
  • 6,196 posts
  • C4D Version:13 Studio
  • Location: London, England

Posted 09 September 2011 - 07:40 AM

Dunno why your caustics look so different from standard render to physical.
Mine look almost the same.

M

EDIT: Just saw you were doing it with only HDRI and no lights. I would never set up a scene with caustics like that anyways.

Edited by morpheus, 09 September 2011 - 07:42 AM.


#26 Pixelatednoise

Pixelatednoise
  • Regular Member
  • 400 posts
  • C4D Version:13 Studio
  • Location: Brooklyn NY

Posted 09 September 2011 - 08:28 AM

Caustics works for me with R13. Here's an old CB caustics scene rendered in R13 with both the standard and physical renderer.

In my opinion the Physical rendered version is much better. In fact I would say the quality of the standard rendered version is awful. The modest increase in render time was well worth it.

The grain you're getting with the Physical renderer can be reduced by increasing the sampling level. The default is very low. However as you increase quality you increase render time. You won't want to be using the Physical Renderer for all of your rendering.

3DKiwi

Load these then flick backwards and forwards using the next and previous buttons found near the top left and right hand edges of the image.

R13 standard renderer. AA Best


R13 Physical renderer. Sampling set to high.


Kiwi, what were your rendertimes on the set of renders. I too am finding the physical renderer to be slow. I will render the same scene with the standard renderer and with GI and AO and its faster than using the physical renderer with AO.

#27 Guest_salanyali_*

Guest_salanyali_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 September 2011 - 04:04 AM

I was worried because it's super slow and noisy for me too. Here's a comparison:

Standard Renderer with GI+AO: 4:06
Physical Renderer Progressive+Indirect Illumination: 12:43

How can we solve this problem? Any optimum setting ideas?

Attached Thumbnails

  • ComicCone3.jpg
  • ComicCone4.jpg


#28 cerbera

cerbera

    Intergalactic Quad Police

  • Regular Member
  • 1,134 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: South East, UK

Posted 18 September 2011 - 04:20 AM

Yeah, I too have found it can be noisy and slow. But I don't think it is intended to be a complete replacement for the standard one. I stay away from it unless I need the in-scene DoF, M-blur and the other photgraphic things it is designed to be good at, or if I need that 'digital photography' look. Otherwise, standard is far faster in a lot of scenes I think. Now I just wish standard had a progressive mode, so I sometimes find myself using Physical for that feature too until rendertime.

There are optimum setttings for each scene no doubt, and there are already several tuts out there which will show you what does what, and theorise about what to optimise; the most succinct and notable I have found is Vertex-pusher's Volume 2 (or the bonus that comes with that) which explains it very logically.

Luminetrics.net - making pixels extra shiny. Some Ngons remaining.


#29 toulouse

toulouse
  • Regular Member
  • 158 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: Orlando, FL

Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:23 AM

Yeah, I too have found it can be noisy and slow. But I don't think it is intended to be a complete replacement for the standard one. I stay away from it unless I need the in-scene DoF, M-blur and the other photgraphic things it is designed to be good at, or if I need that 'digital photography' look. Otherwise, standard is far faster in a lot of scenes I think. Now I just wish standard had a progressive mode, so I sometimes find myself using Physical for that feature too until rendertime.

There are optimum setttings for each scene no doubt, and there are already several tuts out there which will show you what does what, and theorise about what to optimise; the most succinct and notable I have found is Vertex-pusher's Volume 2 (or the bonus that comes with that) which explains it very logically.


I agree. It is good for certain uses...even animation since it seems to diminish annoying flickering (so far). But I'm glad I carried VrayforC4D into r13, since Physical isn't a magic "make pretty picture" solution.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users