28 replies to this topic

[jasonb]

Hi all,

Fairly new to C4D and wondering if VRAYforC4D is still the way to go these days (as opposed to native render engines in R13).

I've seen the great new advancements with progressive rendering etc. so am wondering if it is worth getting to grips with the overwhelming render settings and somewhat different approach that is needed when preparing to render with VRAY in order to get top notch renders.

Any thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.

Cheers

Jason

Edited by jasonb, 26 January 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[brasco]

Go with AR first, if you're not versed in that yet, Vray will be a daunting task. Once you've got a handle on AR, I'd highly recommend Vray if you're after photorealism that's fast. Physical render is a great step forward but is slooooow to get the same results.

cheers
brasc

[DryserG]

Second that, Vray settings and some concepts may be a very confusing for people that only start learning 3d.
Peace,
George.

[Horganovski]

I worked on a project recently where the end results were rendered in VRay, testing during the project was with the Physical renderer.

Pros of VRay - much faster, literally 3-4 times for similar results. (I didn't do any of the settings though, it was a colleague in the UK (I don't even own VRay)).

Cons of VRay - xpresso on the rig did not update properly when motion blur was enabled in VRay. Fixable by baking the animation and deleting the xpresso, but one to watch out for. Apparently it's a long standing bug in VRay4C4D.

Cheers,
Brian

[HSrdelic]

Just to add to what Brian said, there also seems to be a problem with motion blur in Vray at the moment.
With that being said, none is better, both are great engines, and CInema native renderer is more than enough to play with until someone decides he needs something specific.
It would be much beter idea to pick a render engine that is geared towards specifics of the job ;)

Cheers

[jasonb]

Thanks gentlemen.

Seems Vray has the odd bug indeed. I have heard mention of things not showing up in the viewport when using things like Vray proxies etc. Not sure if that is resolved in the latest version though.

Be good to know all the render engines intimately but they do come with a myriad of settings which, if you're fairly new, are enough to make your head spin. http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/yikes.gif

Cheers

Jason

Edited by jasonb, 26 January 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[pfx]

You're really best to address your VRay queries to Stefan (the developer/owner) at VrayforC4D.com. He is very helpful and can give you definitive answers to specific questions. While VRay is daunting at first, he is continually providing preset settings that help you get a fair way along the path. VRay proxies are not something you would be jumping into as soon as you start with VRay.
As the above have said, if you're new to 3D then it's best to come to grips with the native C4D render engine first.

[mmVRay]

Begining with the latest version of VRayForC4D 1.2.6 you just use a normal c4d instance or mograph cloner or any plugin that supports the feature "render instance" and vray will automatically generate real V-Ray proxies of it. It couldn't possibly be any easier, I used it when testing Carbon Scatter, I rendered with the C4D physical render engine and with VRay. All C4D render instances were automatically and transparently converted to VRay Proxies by the render engine. The best part about it is that there is no intervention required on your part and your project file remains unaltered because the VRay render engine performs this conversion in it's own memory space after you submit the render.

Edited by mmVRay, 26 January 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[GaryAbrehart]

So from reading this does V-Ray produce better more photo-realistic results compared to the native AR engine in C4D? I ask because I have an architectural scene I need to render as photo-realistic as possible and I am wondering whether to invest in V-Ray or not. The results I am getting in AR look somewhat artificial, I would post the image but I would be in trouble if I did…

[mmVRay]

So from reading this does V-Ray produce better more photo-realistic results compared to the native AR engine in C4D? I ask because I have an architectural scene I need to render as photo-realistic as possible and I am wondering whether to invest in V-Ray or not. The results I am getting in AR look somewhat artificial, I would post the image but I would be in trouble if I did…

I think most people would agree that the Maxwell Renderer is the most physically accurate render engine available for Cinema 4D. If you look through the galleries at MAXON and VRayForC4D the quality of the renders are very similar and that is because someone familiar with the engine and skilled in post work can produce nearly identical results with either engine. However with Maxwell the key to getting a good render is being a Photoshop guru, years of experience or inside information but it only requires that you create physically accurate materials along with accurate lighting and camera setups and you need to do very little if any work in post. With Maxwell this is easy since Maxwell provides physically accurate preset materials and a hugh library of user created materials. If your materials, lighting and cameras are physically accureate then you are pretty much guaranteed to get a high quality physically accurate render in Maxwell. When using the C4D AR you have many more options when it comes to materials, lights and cameras and these options allow you to do things that are not physically accurate. It takes time to learn how to tinker with all these options and VRayForC4D has many more render options than C4D and it will take time to learn all these options and how they affect the render. So Maxwell is the quickest path to the highest quality render, the only downside is that Maxwell takes a long time to render and it is not 100% compatible with everything C4D can produce. VRayForC4D also has some incompatiblites, it is faster than AR3 in most cases but it is also has more options, requires more experience and in some cases inside information. I get the impression that there are cerrtain groups close to the VayForC4D company that have access to inside information which is not made public and they use that to their advantage. A practice like that is not ethical and is not good for business, I can not prove it but that is the impression I get. When one pays for a publically avaiable product then they should have equal access to the information on how to use that product, especially when it costs over $1000.

[hulaboy]

Vray is arguably a more sophisticated engine than AR anyway, but I'd say that its main advantage in the quest for realism lies in the materials.

As has been said, Cinema's material system has a lot of options which allow you to make surfaces that don't behave in a realistic way - it's certainly possible to build convincing, realistic materials but there's quite a lot of experimentation required. The fundamental material definition in Vray is designed to make it easier to mimic 'real-world' surface properties - not surprising, given that the needs of architectural and product rendering have been the main drivers of its development. In particular, Vray gives you hugely more control over specular shading, which is key.

Mark

[GaryAbrehart]

Gee fanx for the tips peeps :-) So it seems that I might not have to invest in V-Ray/fryrender and that I should be able to get reasonable photo-realistic results from AR provided that I spend time experiementing with the materials and lights.

Off to look for some tutorials any recommendations?

[Rezca]

Vertex Pusher's video tutorial series on the new Physical Engine sould be your first priority

There is also 3DFluff's Photorealism videos but it doesn't cover R13 (Yet, I believe)

[StCanas]

Cons of VRay - xpresso on the rig did not update properly when motion blur was enabled in VRay. Fixable by baking the animation and deleting the xpresso, but one to watch out for. Apparently it's a long standing bug in VRay4C4D.

Just to add to what Brian said, there also seems to be a problem with motion blur in Vray at the moment.

MB should be done in 'post' with something like RSMB. From a production point of view it's very inefficient to do it in render.

Cheers
Karl

[StCanas]

I get the impression that there are cerrtain groups close to the VayForC4D company that have access to inside information which is not made public and they use that to their advantage. A practice like that is not ethical and is not good for business, I can not prove it but that is the impression I get. When one pays for a publically avaiable product then they should have equal access to the information on how to use that product, especially when it costs over $1000.

That's an interesting theory. What leads you to think that? What can't you do that others seem able to?

Cheers
Karl

[toulouse]

It would be much beter idea to pick a render engine that is geared towards specifics of the job ;)

I think this is the best advice. I find AR good for all-around renders....vRay, for non-grainy animations (especially with all those great presets)....Maxwell is hard to beat for arhitectural delineations that use specific types of lighting and materials. When you slap a 50 watt lamp on a plaster wall....you are going to get a photographic view of that setup. Maxwell, for my taste (patience, deadlines) is only for stills. A studio has many tools to make a production....no one tool is going to do it all. If you can only afford a few tools....stick to what they do best.

BTW. I have never seen so many FREE materials available as they have for Maxwell. I think they must have a material for just about anything architectural.

Edited by toulouse, 08 February 2012 - 06:25 AM.

[prycedesign]

When one pays for a publically avaiable product then they should have equal access to the information on how to use that product, especially when it costs over $1000.

Not sure I agree with this. If you buy a saucepan, it doesn't make it the responsibility of the manufacturer to teach you how to cook, thats what cook books are for. There is a Vray manual and plenty of documentation out there, its just finding it and getting your head around it. I find MAXON are quite limited for documentation, but there is plenty of resource out on the interweb which makes up for it. P.

[StCanas]

Very nice showreel you have there, Pryce.

Cheers
Karl

Edited by StCanas, 08 February 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[mmVRay]

That's an interesting theory. What leads you to think that? What can't you do that others seem able to?

Cheers
Karl

Perhaps it has more to do with geography, money and a lack of company focus on communications and training. I do not live in europe so I do not have the oppotutnity to go to any of the trade shows they attend, the company produces no comprehensive beginner or advanded written or video tutorials, there is no built in or contextual help system , I don't have serveral thousands of dollars to buy small group classroom training given by the founder. It seems to me that you really have to work at it if you want to get infromation that is widely available at little or no cost to Cinema 4D users on the AR3. So you are right, the inside information is available if you have the money, live in europe or have time to travel there and go to all the trade shows and parties. If you want to know something you have to hunt through hundreds of pages of forum posts to find the answer. I spent $1000 on a product that after 3 or four years I still have no real grasp on how to get the results I want. Thankfully now they have dozens of render presets that can usually give me the results I want.

[prycedesign]

Very nice showreel you have there, Pryce.

Cheers
Karl

Thanks Karl. Just updating it as we speak. P.