Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bill Borez

Generic renderers question.

Recommended Posts

Bit new to this so sorry if this is basic.

 

I'm confused, can someone explain 3rd party renderers to me, Redshift, Octane, Cycles 4D etc. Are these just working visualisers, or do they actual help with the final render speed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do far more than 'help' with render speed ! And yes, they are used instead of Cinema's native render engines to produce the final render, and throughout the project to provide much faster render previews. Although this is rather an over-simplification / generalisation, there are only a few big reasons why people choose external renderers.

 

1. They want a renderer that runs on the GPU (graphics card(s) as opposed to the CPU (main processor). This provides renders orders of magnitude faster than CPU-based solutions IF you have the sort of graphics card (or cards) that are powerful enough to run them. These usually cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.

 

2. Arguably better /  more photo-real results more easily achievable than with native renderers.

 

3. A studio they are working with / for uses a TPR in their pipeline (and nearly all of them do !).

 

4. Functionality extensions. A lot of TPRs provide a level of instancing, and other functionality not yet matched in native Cinema, making it possible to deal with millions of objects in a scene without crashing the program or killing the viewport. This is less the case since R20 added Multi-instances. Now we can do a beach full of individual sand grains natively :)

 

But also note they all come with their own material systems (usually nodal), lighting and cameras that you typically have to use instead of the Cinema equivalents, although some provide conversion functionality, and others can read Cinema's native materials as well or allow you to add tags to C4D lights and cameras that will enable their use with the render engine. Best to do a lot of reading and research (starting with the 1000s of previous threads here on the subject) before deciding which one might be for you.

 

Lastly, I will just say that it IS possible to achieve truly spectacular and very realistic results using only the included render engines. But there are good reasons why a substantial percentage of professional users go the TPR route as soon as they are able to.

 

CBR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Thanks for the reply, explains it nicely.

     

    So I have an Razer Core X eGPU with a Vega 64 for my mac, I'm guessing one would really help with the render times here?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    You're welcome. I can give you the overview, but I am one of the few people here who doesn't actually use a TPR (! My main focus is modelling), so should leave it to the people that do to advise on your specific system...

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    43 minutes ago, Bill Borez said:

    Thanks for the reply, explains it nicely.

     

    So I have an Razer Core X eGPU with a Vega 64 for my mac, I'm guessing one would really help with the render times here? 

    Most GPU rendering software runs on Nvidia cards with the exception of Cycles I believe, so your options might be limited with your current set up.  You'll have to check the system requirements of each vendor.  Besides the main advantage of speed of rendering (you only take a tiny hit for depth of field and motion blur in Redshift for example) the IPR (interactive preview render) makes texturing and lighting a very organic "artist friendly"  and speedy process.  Also, 3rd party renderers tend to be more in line with industry standards/pace so the knowledge you acquire using them might translate better across packages.  This may be less true now that C4D switched to Nodes for materials but I don't have it, so someone else should chime in on that point.  Regardless, you are also more likely to see their use in other combinations anyway (Maya/Redshift,VRay,Arnold  Houdini/Redshift etc. ) so your knowledge gained will be directly transferable if you use other packages in combination with TPRs. 

     

    A Cycles to C4D bridge is sold by Insydium  and I think they have a free trial (Cycles is free in Blender since they make it)  Personally I would recommend buying an Nvidia card which will open up Octane and Redshift.  Redshift is amazing and is licensed per machine not per software package like VRay or Octane.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Yep, for what it's worth, when I go TPR, it'll be Redshift ;)

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I really like Cycles especially with the new update they are coming out with the real time preview is faster, it works with all CPU, GPUs at the same time to get maximum power out of all your hardware.  I think a lot of people don't like the nodes in Cycles, but they provide a ton of power when you learn them.  Some things can be done with Cycles nodes that can't be done with other render engines.  Cycles also works prefectly with X-Particles if you are thinking of using X-Particles. 

     

    Insydium the people that make X-particles and Cycles are having a half price sale tomorrow if you want to get both for a great price.  Cycles is already the lowest cost render enigne for C4D.  With the half price deal it becomes a steal.

     

    Insydium website

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • @FastbeeTo be honest I was about to pull the trigger on  Cycles 4d this morning as I'm using X-Particles until I learned that they've recently dropped Open CL on OSX so it won't render on my AMD GPU.

     

    http://manual.cycles4d.net/html/sysreq.htm

     

    Now I'm even more confused.

     

    @anglereserve I'm not going to even attempt running an Nvidia card in the eGPU with OSX.  I know people have done it in the Hackintosh community, but it seems like a PITA to get going.

     

    Honestly if it wasn't for my music production and lecturing relying on OSX I'd actually drop Apple like a stone right now. And that's after nearly 3 decades of using Apple products.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Sign in to follow this  

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...