Grass - BI vs Cycles

I have put together a small little grass scene in blender, rendered it in both engines and got the following results;



BI


Cycles

I prefer BI overall and these tests enforce that belief.

Which do you prefer? What can i do to make them better?

Strand/Hair based grass is not really that convincing even though users post all kinds of scenes. If you were to make some models of actual grass and use them as objects in the particle system you will get better results. Grass does not look like a strand it is a plant that should be modeled. Also grass has lots of variety as well. In my yard I have crab grass, bluegrass and Ohio whatever grass all growing in the same plot.

Only the BI one is strand based, the cycles one is curve based because as far as I know, cycles doesn’t support strand rendering. I’ll change them in the morning, but here in Australia it’s time for bed.

Sorry, but this survey is quite useless. I think a good artist can reach comparable (realistic) results whith both engines. But first you need modelled and textured gras. Then you can compare the different lightings with both engines.
Good lighting in Cycles might be easier, but with BI, it should be also possible (maybe take a look at the Nature Academy).

In the picture Neither of them is good. Appearently you are not good in either BI or Cycles at making grass. For a BI method to render the grass, watch the Blender guru tutorial.
Not sure how much of the methods Cycles can use … more or less, but would also add GI. So the result would probably be better.

I think in the “blending nature” thread, there is a great grass tutorial for cycles near the end.

But yea, sorry, none of them look very good. I’d say the cycles one is still better.

Between the two, the cycles one looks the most realistic without the modelling and texturing others have mentioned.

Overall it is very difficult to see with the difference in lighting and the low amount of samples you rendered in Cycles with.

Try setting up a mesh light and crank the strength up a bit.

Neither of them is too good. The BI one looks like it was made too quickly, without paying any attention to detail, wrong color, wrong shape for the grass, etc… here is what I made using The Nature Academy’s technique:

I am not nearly good enough with cycles to make a comparable image. But I bet someone is. Anyways, this poll is useless if you don’t show the best of both.

It’s like asking which is better: a whopper from Burger King or a raw steak from an actual restaurant. In neither cases (hamburger or steak) is any of them any good.

Sorry for the last sentence I really don’t know the grammatically correct way of saying it.

By the way: the picture I posted is all strand rendering, no AO, no global illumination, some light compositing for the mountains and the lens flare. no color correction on the grass. pure BI.

This test prooves nothing. Moreover it’s really annoying to see people saying “Cycles loks better” beacuse they obviously cannot use BI properly. The main benefit of Cycles is GI that I cannot see in this test. The scene is just bad.

I know from experience that grass is really, really hard to get right. Even the nature academy grass (no offense) looks wrong. In my opinion it is easier to get realistic grass in cycles, but it takes work and time either way.

What I like about TNA’s grass is that, while not completely realistic, it fits my style: “paradise” renders, and more comic scenes. I believe that nothing a computer will make will ever be realitic, so I might as well create what I dream about. Computers are too perfect, they don’t know imperfections.

Moreover it’s really annoying to see people saying “Cycles loks better” beacuse they obviously cannot use BI properly.

Judging by the images posted, Cycles one is obviously better.
But what are the best results possible (BI vs Cycles) is unknown.


@negativa Thanks, I’ll be sure to check that out.
Meanwhilst, I cannot afford TNA but i will try to replicate imperfections into both. Until then, I’m going to go stare at my lawn.

@negativa: I like it. why do you have bald spots though? Your render is definitely more realistic than mine. I don’t understand anything of your site. What language is it in?

it’s Russian, view it in Google Chrome and it’ll translate the page for you.

Negativa - great render, it is very realistic!

I believe that nothing a computer will make will ever be realitic, so I might as well create what I dream about. Computers are too perfect, they don’t know imperfections.
Dude, that’s just a cop out. We may as well not even try realism if we never get it perfect, right guys! guys? BTW Im not bashing your work, just your philosophy.

I’ve redone the BI version of the grass and when I get time tomorrow I’ll add these changes to the cycles version.


Computers can do whatever you tell them to do, the rest is up to the artist.

zagony: your grass geometry looks much better now, but try and replicate the lighting conditions when you port it to cycles so you don’t end up with another dark render with 10 samples.

NinthJake: That video blows me away every time I watch it, thanks for reminding us of it again and a great example of realistic computer graphics :slight_smile: