Cinema 4D Plugins
Cinema 4D Plugins
Igor

Not sure what renderer to pick?! This might help!

31 posts in this topic

Good news guys, Pavel was really nice and he allowed me to share his work here...so...Cinema 4D renderer in right hands can do this: http://www.c4d.cz/tutorials.aspx

arkade.jpg  ibiza_small1.jpg  ibiza.jpg  banner 02.jpg

1 hour ago, JuanRender said:

Hi, 3D-Pangel.

For sure, Slgor is referring to brute force (almost unbiased) rendering capabilities of AR. It´s a "secret" feature of AR, linked to reflectance channel, and linked to physical renderer. You don´t need GI with properly defined materials... Now, the problem is rendering time.

Yes, exactly! Thank you! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SIgor said:

Good news guys, Pavel was really nice and he allowed me to share his work here...so...Cinema 4D renderer in right hands can do this: http://www.c4d.cz/tutorials.aspx

arkade.jpg  ibiza_small1.jpg  ibiza.jpg  banner 02.jpg

Yes, exactly! Thank you! :)

 

Yes, that´s the key point

 

all the technology approaches of the system are same to Arnold. Because the main idea is really very simple.

 

And I also don´t think it´s so slow. Yes, it´s not fast, but I did many renders in the past and they are always very easy and fast  to build up/set up (unbiased way) and it does ultracool multipass files those provide very accurate and flexible color grading.  OK, you can´t relight it like in Thea or Corona, but you can do something even better - fully colorize all the created stuff without a lose!

 

And, it´s - maybe just mine opinion, it´s even faster than Arnold esp. in several tasks (glass, check the example bellow).

 

Summary: technically it´s a very fast engine that´s limited by several internal features those don´t affect "GI/diffuse" effect itself. They are DoF, MB and Glass/refraction.

I love it, I use it all the time :)

 

BMXbikecomp1.jpg

kidbikefinal1.jpg

sonicareproject1.jpg

toaster1.jpg

mucolarge00001.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other render engines to consider would be Cycles, Thea, and Redshift.  Redshift is not out for C4D yet.  When testing with other programs it looks like it can be really fast in many scenes.  There is definitely a reason huge companies like Blizzard use it.  Redshift's speed can definitely be the fastest with only a slight reduction in quality.  It's great how they got past the GPU memory limit, and their development seems fast.  Quality is good enough for most scenes.  Cycles looks great for higher quality ray tracing, works with volumetrics, has an amazing plugin for C4D, great varity of layers, and works perfect for xparticles, but does not really have anyone to contact to recommend new features to for the core engine.  Thea is the ultimate in quality.  Thea is slower than Redshift, but way faster than Maxwell.  Development could be faster for Thea.

I'd say after Redshift comes out probably everything can be rendered with either Redshift or Cycles.  With those two other render engines won't be needed as great quality and great render times could be achieved all the time.

C4D native rendering can do great things, but has no real time and can take forever to render good GI.  Corona can be really good and is fast enough to not go crazy, but has a little bit of a learning curve to not get flickering with animation and maybe slightly slower than Cycles.  Maxwell has good support and great quality, but is slow.  Maxwell quality is not as good as Thea, but is very good.  Octane is fast has huge support for a ton of features, but slows a lot when upping quality and doing real ray tracing.  VRay can be fast if you get past the learning curve.  IR in VRay sometimes makes you go crazy trying to find something that works without flickering or visible splotches and still gives good render times.

I meant this to be a short thing saying "also try out Cycles, Thea, and Redshift".  Now looking at it I feel like I'm still scratching the surface of explaining all the differences between all the different engines.  Rendering is really a crazy thing.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to watch these comparison videos.  I didnt feel Vray 3.4 got shown its potential as his IPR didnt start, and for some reason he did things the old manual way as in v1.9 and didnt show that Vray has light presets, quick render setting to make the whole thing far more simple for new users?

 

Dan

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 8:04 PM, SIgor said:

Pavel was really nice and he allowed me to share his work here...so...Cinema 4D renderer in right hands can do this

he has a full post about more of these renders in CGsociety (around 2 months ago ) , and it is really amazing ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 4:59 PM, Fastbee said:

Other render engines to consider would be Cycles, Thea, and Redshift.  Redshift is not out for C4D yet.  When testing with other programs it looks like it can be really fast in many scenes.  There is definitely a reason huge companies like Blizzard use it.  Redshift's speed can definitely be the fastest with only a slight reduction in quality.  It's great how they got past the GPU memory limit, and their development seems fast.  Quality is good enough for most scenes.  Cycles looks great for higher quality ray tracing, works with volumetrics, has an amazing plugin for C4D, great varity of layers, and works perfect for xparticles, but does not really have anyone to contact to recommend new features to for the core engine.  Thea is the ultimate in quality.  Thea is slower than Redshift, but way faster than Maxwell.  Development could be faster for Thea.

I'd say after Redshift comes out probably everything can be rendered with either Redshift or Cycles.  With those two other render engines won't be needed as great quality and great render times could be achieved all the time.

C4D native rendering can do great things, but has no real time and can take forever to render good GI.  Corona can be really good and is fast enough to not go crazy, but has a little bit of a learning curve to not get flickering with animation and maybe slightly slower than Cycles.  Maxwell has good support and great quality, but is slow.  Maxwell quality is not as good as Thea, but is very good.  Octane is fast has huge support for a ton of features, but slows a lot when upping quality and doing real ray tracing.  VRay can be fast if you get past the learning curve.  IR in VRay sometimes makes you go crazy trying to find something that works without flickering or visible splotches and still gives good render times.

I meant this to be a short thing saying "also try out Cycles, Thea, and Redshift".  Now looking at it I feel like I'm still scratching the surface of explaining all the differences between all the different engines.  Rendering is really a crazy thing.

I've been alpha testing redshift and it is truly a beast when it comes to speed. Fastest renderer I've used so far.  The out-of-core memory trickery is brilliant. Still missing a few key things for me to pledge allegiance.  But it is in alpha still... so we'll see.  My fingers are crossed.  

I also do love Cycles4D.  Could be a little faster / more efficient, but it's incredibly well-integrated, especially with X-particles.  The ability to switch to CPU rendering has already saved me once or twice with scenes that my VRAM couldn't handle.   Just wish it was automatic as with Redshift.  

I've been curious about giving Corona another try.  My first shot at it was somewhat disappointing.  Maybe going through this webinar will change my mind.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up! BTW, why are these videos "not publicly listed"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cycles user chiming in. So far Cycles 4D has been a mixed bag for me. It's very affordable, fast, has lots of great features, tight x-particle integration, pretty speedy and great quality. Right now it feels pretty buggy though. The node editor is kind of a mess right now, and Cycles has frequent and hard to replicate stability issues. 

 

If you're looking at cycles, I'd get into it now to play around, but imo it's not stable enough for production. Too many random crashes in Cycles 4D to make it worth using currently.

 

UPDATE

So it turns out that I was affected by a very rarely occurring bug that was crashing a particular render I was working with. I eventually was able to diagnose and report the problem to the very helpful guys at the Cycles4D forums (shoutout to Mario and Mohammed) for working with me to identify this bug.

 

I am redacting my original position as the renderer works great now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video showcasing Vray put in the hands of some fantastic artists.  Truly brilliant art, and fantastic render engine Technology.

https://www.vray.com/showcase/#church-on-the-water

Dan

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rectro said:

Here is a video showcasing Vray put in the hands of some fantastic artists.  Truly brilliant art, and fantastic render engine Technology.

https://www.vray.com/showcase/#church-on-the-water

Dan

Amazing ! :O Thanks for sharing! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rectro said:

Here is a video showcasing Vray put in the hands of some fantastic artists.  Truly brilliant art, and fantastic render engine Technology.

https://www.vray.com/showcase/#church-on-the-water

Dan

if it wasn't in the vray forum I would think it is a photograph ....

really amazing work 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2017 at 0:37 PM, Tibbs said:

Cycles user chiming in. So far Cycles 4D has been a mixed bag for me. It's very affordable, fast, has lots of great features, tight x-particle integration, pretty speedy and great quality. Right now it feels pretty buggy though. The node editor is kind of a mess right now, and Cycles has frequent and hard to replicate stability issues. 

 

If you're looking at cycles, I'd get into it now to play around, but imo it's not stable enough for production. Too many random crashes in Cycles 4D to make it worth using currently.

UPDATE

So it turns out that I was affected by a very rarely occurring bug (squashed in the upcoming core update) that was crashing a particular render I was working with. I eventually was able to diagnose and report the problem to the very helpful guys at the Cycles4D forums (shoutout to Mario and Mohammed) for working with me to identify this bug.

I am redacting my original position as the renderer works great now.

(updated my original post to reflect as much)

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.