Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Member Ace Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wichita Kansas (USA)
    Posts
    28,021
    Originally Posted by juang3d View Post
    Yu are right, but so far no Blender support AFAIK, Corona is Also great, very fast being a CPU render engine, awesome results and free for Blender

    Cheers.
    That's not to forget that Cycles saw a trio of major optimizations in the last year (light sampling threshold + denoising + new RR sampling with no min bounce parameter, the last one just coming in this month). While it speeds up GPU rendering even more, it's making Cycles quite viable to use with the CPU now if you don't like very long render times.
    Sweet Dragon dreams, lovely Dragon kisses, gorgeous Dragon hugs. How sweet would life be to romp with Dragons, teasing you with their fire and you being in their games, perhaps they can even turn you into one as well.
    Adventures in Cycles; My official sketchbook



  2. #22
    Totally agree



  3. #23
    Member Indy_logic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    960
    Originally Posted by BeerBaron View Post
    Compositing volumetrics requires deep compositing, which the compositor can't do (yet).
    This actually isn't true. I'm surprise! The replay below you is correct. We have to do this any time we do volumetrics at work because Vray volumes are crap slow and we usually just need simple light beams. So, we wind up using Max's scalene volumetrics and comp them into the scene afterwords. We just put a holdout mat material on everything for that pass. This is the way it's always been done.

    By the way, we used Deep compositing with Vray in a Honda spot recently. That was about all we needed to see that it wasn't really the way to go. You generate WAY to much data to be dealt with reasonably. Can't play the frames back in real-time. The compositor was tearing his hair out waiting for frames to load. It was kind of a sh*t show. And all that because we wanted better post DOF. Ugh.

    Originally Posted by pitiwazou View Post
    You should try redshift, it's faster than Cycles ^^
    Unfair comparison. Redshift uses Biased GI approximation. Cycles does not and for a reason: GI variance. Anyone who has used Vray with irradience mapping knows what happens when you render and animation of moving characters. Splotchy flickering. You have to keep upping the subdivisions and making the render take longer anyway. Don't get me wrong, it's great for arch/vis fly-throughs and large stills but as soon as you get into animation it quickly looses it's appeal.

    Also, try comparing Cycles to Redshift using brut force only. Not such a sizable lead anymore? There are some things that are just faster in Redshift though. I'll give them that. But as soon as you turn off light mapping thing get a little more equalized.

    But there's a reason ALL of the top movie studios use path tracers like Cycles. Disney's Hyperion, Pixar's RenderMan, ILM and Sony (and others) using Arnold, Animal Logic's Glimpse and Weta's Manuka. All of them are path tracers just like Cycles. And since the goal of the Blender Studio is to make animated films, it makes sense that you would take the approach other studios take.

    The main reasons that major studio's use path tracing are, fast (albeit noisy) preview renders, less time spent trouble shooting render errors and messing with settings, and studios also know that computer render time is cheaper than artist time. What's the point of making an artist spend hours separating out everything into passes and rendering and re-rendering and diagnosing render errors just to save time in final render when rendering costs so much less? Just spend the extra time rendering. Path tracers will always converge into a noiseless "Correct" solution given enough time.



  4. #24
    Member Indy_logic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    960
    While we are on the subject of things good and not good about Cycles I have to say, my favorite feature of Cycles is being able to be used in mixed CPU/GPU environments. Redshift and Octane are GPU only. With Vray you have to set up you scene to either use CPU Vray or GPU Vray and they are not at all the same.

    With Cycles, you just make sure that GPU rendering is enabled on those machines with GPUs and send your scene to be rendered. As Blender encounters machines without GPU's they just fall back to CPU. Nothing could be easier.

    The other great thing is that you don't have to abandon your old CPU based resources. You can scale up with GPUs as you can afford them. This has become a very compelling thing for our studio. We know we want to use GPU rendering but we can't just throw away our CPU render farm.



  5. #25
    Originally Posted by BeerBaron View Post
    No.


    Compositing volumetrics requires deep compositing, which the compositor can't do (yet).
    Even in Nuke it's pretty limited without a few plugins, and really slow for individual workstations.

    Lots of potential though.
    "Houdini ain't that great a software. Why not something simpler like Blender?" - Internet Fanboy



  6. #26
    Originally Posted by pitiwazou View Post
    You should try redshift, it's faster than Cycles ^^
    It's been a while, but I was pretty underwhelmed by it's built-in shaders. I couldn't figure out how to get scattering anisotropy to even work, though they must have added that by now.

    The examples on their website are pretty lack-luster, too.

    Corona though is awesome. It doesn't have VDB support afaik, and isn't really intended as a production renderer, but it's pretty fun.

    Anyone try the new Maxwell with GPU an denoise??
    Last edited by shawn.kearney; 13-Aug-17 at 17:36.
    "Houdini ain't that great a software. Why not something simpler like Blender?" - Internet Fanboy



  7. #27
    Member Ace Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wichita Kansas (USA)
    Posts
    28,021
    Originally Posted by shawn.kearney View Post
    It's been a while, but I was pretty underwhelmed by it's built-in shaders. I couldn't figure out how to get scattering anisotropy to even work, though they must have added that by now.
    I know they have GGX shading at least.

    Though it has been found that a lot of CG artists will excitedly embrace a downgrade in shading and lighting technology if they can get results really really fast. Some of the stuff Redshift has for instance refer back to the days of tweaking cache resolution and making walls thick enough to avoid light leaks, but it doesn't stop artists everywhere from calling it the best renderer in the history of software.
    Sweet Dragon dreams, lovely Dragon kisses, gorgeous Dragon hugs. How sweet would life be to romp with Dragons, teasing you with their fire and you being in their games, perhaps they can even turn you into one as well.
    Adventures in Cycles; My official sketchbook



  8. #28
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,647
    Originally Posted by icyou520 View Post
    Cycles volumetrics brings my computer to a crawl...
    I'm not sure what that expression means...
    Anyway, now that we have Denoising we can play with it when we use Volumetrics in Cycles. To make Volumetrics faster, it is important to set up "Step Size" in Render Tab under Geometry item. The higher value the faster render, but more noise and less detail. So use for example 0.3 or 0.6. Even larger values if you are going to use strong Denoising filter and you do not need much detail.
    If you are using the same GPU to render and display, large "Step Size" value will also help you to make your system not become slow and unresponsive in Rendered View with heavy volumetrics:
    https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/...ne/006638.html

    Now Denoising... Now that you have set up a suitable large "Step Size" for fast rendering of volumetrics, you play with Denoising appropriate values of "Radius" and "Feature Strength". If you get patches, increase samples. In addition it is possible that you get fewer patches after denoising using "Correlated Multi-Jitter" pattern method under Sampling in Render Tab.

    Edit:
    "Step Size" does not seem to have much effect on very basic volumetrics. But this has effect for volumetrics with textures or smoke for example.
    Last edited by YAFU; 14-Aug-17 at 08:57.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •