Testing different renderers

[luppa]

This is the first message I'm putting on this forum, so don't be cruel
During the summer I tested different renderers with a test scene. I guess
you already have seen a bunch of these, mut here's one more.

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kuisti/render-testing/

I'm no sure that this is the right forum for this (the is also the blender testing forum).

The tests are actually already a bit outdated, I will have to do new ones. Please put
input on how to make the renderings better and how to tweak the renderer settings.

The page looks very crude, bare with me.

[AniCator]

Your page may look 'unprofessional' but the content is great and the images are cool to look at.

I still would go for the Blender Internal renderer because it lits the room very well. (I assume all 'Sun' settings were the same)

- AniCator

PS: I'm not bumping right? Your page was featured on BlenderNation.com a few days ago.

[garuhhh]

Originally Posted by AniCator I still would go for the Blender Internal renderer because it lits the room very well. (I assume all 'Sun' settings were the same) - AniCator PS: I'm not bumping right? Your page was featured on BlenderNation.com a few days ago.

ow! that's why it looked familiar! nice to see those comparisons! i love the internal, it's fast... i don't have a fast computer.. 500Mhz, so rendering using other renderer seems not to be an option for me.

welcome luppa!

[Rinne]

So, finally found the thread

Are you going to try the settings I recommended you?

Regards....

[luppa]

Rinne: yes, I will update the page when I have the time and try the settings you sent
me. I'll also look into the Yaf(a)ray renderer, as it sounds very interesting.

I will try out the Kerkythea renderer first, I already downloaded it and tried it out,
and I was very impressed with it. I'm having a bit of trouble with it though, the
textures look kind of pale, and I'm not getting the bump mapping or displacement
mapping to work yet, will have to look into some tutorials and documentation.
Somebody wondered why it already wasn't in the test. Well because I didn't have
it! Don't be so lazy! Make your own tests! I'm not the ultimate renderer-testing
authority

The page seems to be quite controversial: it hat a lot of feedback on Blendernation,
some people didn't really understand the point of my testing. The point actually was:
what kind of an image a renderer makes, scene illuminated with sun and skylight.
There's not much tweaking on the material side that can be done. Some people had
the opinion that there no point at doing tests like these. I wonder, how are they
making the decision on what renderer to use? Do they use a dice? I don't see the
harm in testing different renderers with a similar scene. Of course the images they make
don't look alike, they're different renderers!

With the renderer, there is much to be tested and tweaked. One of the main reasons I
put up the page was that I could ask questions and advice on settings (I can put the
advice I'm getting to the page), but I didn't get a lot of that yet. I did get a lot of bashing

That being said, I would like to point out that I'm only testing one type of archi-viz
rendering here, and I'm not telling anybody which renderer to use. Maybe I didn't
emhasize this enough on the page. Everyone has to make more tests on their
own, put here are some pointers. I wanted that people would put more information
on their own renderings, on the Blender or renderer galleries, so others can learn
more, at least on the render times.

Some of the feedback was on AA: I'll put it on for the next images. There was a
reason I left it out this time. I was mainly testing for my own purposes, and the AA
passes take up a lot of time. There are a good number of settings even for the
AA on some renderers, so to be able to compare the rendertimes somehow
I toke it completely off. This works on behalf of Indigo, where the images are
anti-aliased no matter what you do. I'll try to find some common settings for
AA on all the renderers.