Hi! Since there is no information on the internet (at least i couldn’t find) and this forum is full of experts about this topic, i wanted to ask you: What is/would be the difference between Cycles and Octane? Why is Octane more realistic than cycles? And since i compared both of them i have noticed that the light fall off and gradients are way better and more natural in octane than in cycles, why is that? Will the Principled V2 change this situation? Since AgX is also available Octane, I don’t count it as a difference.
Maybe someone of you can shed some light into this topic for me
Cause a lot of Addons are optimised on Cycles and also I think it’s just amazing that open source is so powerful! Also I am interested in the technical differences!
I’m sorry but that’s not a particularly well thought out response (and I’m putting it diplomatically).
Octane for Blender is hackily implemented to say the least, and it’s not current so that if you need some of the latest features of Blender it’s not an option.
The OP poses a very legitimate and curious question that I have been having as well – why does Cycles look so cartoony and not nearly as photorealistic as Octane (or honestly just about any other render engine)?
I’ve been looking at the Featured Artist Row for years now, and although there is some beautiful artwork on there, I have yet to see something that truly sold me on realism the way even completely average Octane renders do.
I think the OP’s questions are legit – is Principled V2 going to present improvements or is it basically the same with some minor shading tweaks?
I think it’s not about the money. The real selling point for cycles is its implementation or maybe the implementation of addons and features in cycles. The “API’s” of blender/cycles make it so enormously powerful, that if it would be more realistic, cycles would be almost unbeatable.
I just hope that someone can give me a technical explanation for dummies why octane is so much more realistic!
I think unless someone can post a series of comparison images of Cycles vs Octane, same scene, same lighting (might be a bit hard since I heard they use different Light power units, might need to do some math work to keep them the same, not comfirmed though) with the same view transform, and pin point the difference and why Octane is better, more importantly, make sure the pro-Octane side people all agree on the same comparison analysis, otherwise, the discussion is going no where.
14 Likes
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
10
I went to look at some Octane showcases because of this thread, and yeah, there is a certain je nais sai quoi to it that makes it seem a little more realistic relative to Cycles. It’s subtle, arguably to the point that it’s something only someone who’s down in the weeds of 3D would notice, but it is there.
Really, when you get right down to it, all I can add to this conversation is “yeah, probably, but hey, I’m happy with Cycles, so whatever.”
edit: after looking at a bunch of different pictures of Cycles and Octane renders, the best way I’d explain the difference would be to say that Cycles looks “thicker.” Like it’s painting with a broader brush compared to Octane’s needle fine point. Though how much of that is due to the artists, or due to the render, I can’t say.
I can upload an example tomorrow. I have to admit I tried octane the first in the last week, and to me it comes down to two advantages of it:
Number one are the lights. Octane seems to be way more naturalistic or real when It comes to softboxes. It’s at the same time so much softer but also defining.
Number two: Metals. Just look way better and the option of getting the real IOR values (3 values actually) is just crucial for me as an industrial designer.
But you’re right we need to compare it, so I will upload something tomorrow.
Nothing the less, do you know about the technical differences in engines?
I don’t, but I am curious. I just don’t understand how it can both be a real spectral renderer and support ACES. Like, if you set your lighting color as ACEScg’s pure green, how does the engine turn that tristimulus into spectra? It’s impossible AFAIK.
It’s about the money for me- I’ve never used Octane because I can’t justify 20 dollars a month when I use Eevee 90% of the time. If it was free, I would have installed it years ago
I knew you’d say something like that – and quite honestly if the difference it’s not immediately obvious to you I don’t know what else to say. It’s like comparing an ARRI Alexa footage with an iPhone – can’t explain scientifically why the Alexa looks cinematic AF and the iPhone doesn’t even when people try really hard to make it look so. But if you can’t tell the difference I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say to make you see it.
One of the best examples I can think of that shows off just how amazing Octane looks is this video. I don’t care what kind of shading genius you are, there is no way in a million years to make Cycles look like this:
I know AgX now, compared even to the initial version unveiled by Troy, has led to the appearance of grading in my scenes to actually look more realistic on a direct comparison. I believe Filmic was actually changed to feel more like a slight upgrade to sRGB when it landed in Blender (which eliminated the need to re-author existing shaders, but took away any oomph that made the scenes in the Blenderguru demo look more realistic).
Yes, AgX did require some rework of my existing materials, but the end result was better than before.
The Spectral rendering meanwhile will lead to the lighting of scenes getting a slight boost in cases where a lot of saturation is present, so it is another small step toward potent photorealism. However, the functionality will not be as complete as Octane, since a full spectral workflow will actually break your entire library of PBR textures.
AgX makes major improvements to the saturation curve, so you do not have a harsh increase in saturation in low light. I do agree such a look would just be impossible with the transform that comes with Blender 3.5.
Never argued that you couldn’t. I just said that if you can’t tell the difference between the two, I’m not sure there’s anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise!
As I said, look at the video that I just posted and tell me with a straight face that you think you could totally get Blender Cycles to look like that.
Again, show comparisons, I am not saying I can’t tell the difference, but you need to show comparisons with controlled variables before we can discuss any further. Like how we do scientific research.
