Jump to content
Cinema 4D Plugins

Sammy

Standard vs Physical Render

Recommended Posts

Cerbera    1,968
10 minutes ago, SPOD said:

So physical needs the settings cranked up to match the standard?  

Not quite - PR has a lot more settings than SR, so needs setting up correctly before render in a way that SR doesn't - with that you only have to set Aliasing quality and that's about it... PR just takes a little more work to set up initially.

10 minutes ago, SPOD said:

Does it do a better job on a more complex scene?

That will depend on the things in the scene, what type of materials they have, and whether you are optimizing for speed or quality. I always try both renderers on complex scenes and use whichever one gives me faster / better results... Now that SR is <50% faster in R19 it is getting more of  look-in than it used to ! Oh, and SR is so much better when hair is involved, so that aspect should further tilt you one way or another if your scene includes any...

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOD    1

I went through as many PR settings as I could, and the standard wins this round.  Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera    1,968
30 minutes ago, SPOD said:

I went through as many PR settings as I could, and the standard wins this round.  Thanks for your help.

You're welcome. I'm a great fan of Adaptive / Automatic / 10% in PR, but sometimes Standard just does win the day !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPOD    1
37 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

You're welcome. I'm a great fan of Adaptive / Automatic / 10% in PR, but sometimes Standard just does win the day !

Oh great, i'll give that a shot and see how it comes out.  Was mainly playing around in the GI settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about external renderers like VRay, Arnold, Cycles... are these (generally) faster and/or better than the built in Physical Renderer? I guess each external renderer will use it's own materials system?  I find Physical Renderer to be pretty slow for animations, if you want to get any kind of decent quality, but I don't really have a frame of reference other than standard renderer,
I'm still on the fence on whether to learn Physical Renderer+Reflectance more thoroughly or try any of the 3rd party renderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera    1,968

I am well in the minority being largely happy with Physical Render, and not feeling the need for any external renderer at all. But they wouldn't be there if people didn't want them, so we have to assume there are advantages to going external. Mainly it'll be the GPU speed advantages, because PR is CPU based, but some people swear they get more realistic results using the 3rd party ones.

 

Some can use or convert standard C4D materials, but most don't, so that is one big thing to consider. Also, if you are badly missing a nodal material system in C4D you will find that most 3rd party renderers give you one.

 

To be honest just have a search round the site - there are so many threads comparing the externals to the native PR I couldn't begin to point you at any one... Oh ok - maybe this one, which is still nice and current :) 

 

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, thanks! I shouldn't hijack this thread :) My current setup has good CPU power (dual Xeon system) but nothing special in the GPU department so maybe I should stick with Physical renderer for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPOD    1

Yeah i've been looking into V Ray & Octane, but as i'm still just learning C4D and doing my own projects, I figure I should focus my money and time on what I already have.  I'm running a 2013 iMac with 32 gig & team rendering a macbook, but I think i'd invest in a computer before a new renderer.  It is alluring though, especially if it would speed up renders on this iMac.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sammy    2
  • Topic Author
  • On 9/26/2017 at 10:47 AM, SPOD said:

    So physical needs the settings cranked up to match the standard?  Does it do a better job on a more complex scene?

    Yeah you can go into your rendersettings > Physical and then when you choose your sampler type go for automatic (renders infinitely adding quality until you stop the render) or go for adaptive and then the dropdown below you choose automatic and then the overall image quality will be decicded by 1 setting which is the "Shading Error Threshold" which is a little more down below in the same window, but you'll notice straight away if your gonna play with some heavy fx like DOF or SSS you're gonna have to put in crazy numbers there which will increase rendertime.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968
    11 minutes ago, Sammy said:

    Physical and then when you choose your sampler type go for automatic (renders infinitely adding quality until you stop the render)

    That's not right. It's progressive mode that does that.

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Sammy    2
  • Topic Author
  • Sorry i switched them you're right, Progressive is the one where it keeps adding quality to the render until you stop it.
    Adaptive + Automatic sums up all of the settings in 1 parameter going from  0% to 100%

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    ninjad    13

    I've actually done extensive tests with the Physical Renderer using Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion specifically for animation.

     

    Really the main reason to use physical is the render times if you want to use GI, AO, and area shadows.

     

    My personal reasons for sticking with physical over trying a 3rd party renderer are first, time & money, and second you can achieve reasonable results for reasonable render times with a modest rig.

     

    I've found sampling & shadow subdivision values (in the physical settings) to be the biggest factor for render times and quality.

     

    I personally have settled on a grainier look which I actually like because it has more of a film quality and makes render speeds bearable. You just have to know what's important to your look and what you're willing to compromise in the name of time and resources.

     

    Attached are 1920 x 1080 stills with medium quality GI+AO settings of a scene containing 3 lights with area shadows, rendered on a 635 cb rig. The only setting I changed between the 2 are the standard and physical settings. I know it's kind of a goofy scene, but it shows some of the differences.

     

    Standard (8m 10s):

    170807-standard_scene-GI_SampleCount_10-8m10s.thumb.jpg.7950433678bf4fce85564c02cadb15e5.jpg

     

     

    Physical (5m 58s):

    170807-physical_scene-GI_SampleCount_10-5m58s.thumb.jpg.59b65cb715107346bbddb0ce508fcb59.jpg

     

    The overall tone of the physical example is brighter, and you should be able to notice the quality of the shadows is slightly smoother with subtler shading. Another thing to note is the detail in the headlights, the standard example seems to really pixelate the reflective details. The main thing to note is the render times.

     

    So basically if you want GI+AO+area shadows, physical is the way to go, otherwise if these factors are not important, then standard should be fine. Oh also not shown with this example, but I'm pretty sure SSS and caustics are also reasons to use physical.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×