Digital Art Zone

 
     
Render speed comparison between 3Delight and Octane?
Posted: 18 May 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  644
Joined  2011-03-26

I split this out of another thread because I can see a high risk that this may turn out into some “app war” as some moderators call it.

Still I think there is some room for users to actually compare and discuss differences between rendering solutions.

There are allready threads for biased vs unbiased.
Lux vs Octane
3Delight vs Lux

So the Octane vs 3Delight seems to be missing.

Just try to keep it civil. pretty please. tongue rolleye

Superdog - 18 May 2013 08:45 AM

The images rendered with Octane look fantastic.  As a point of reference would it be possible for people to post render times in DAZ render engine as well so we can compare time savings and quality?

.

This would probably be hard to do in a scientific correct way.
Both 3Delight and Octane have different kind of render settings that will drastically improve quality and render time.

What could be done is comparing 3Delight UE2 with ambient light with Octane “Direct Light Kernel” in “Ambient Mode”

Ambient mode means there is no “bleeding” of color into the scene. In Octane the Ambient Mode is considered as the low quality test mode.

For high quality final renderings one would have to compare

3Delight UE2 with indirect lights w/Directional shadows mode…  and Octane Render “PMC” kernel that also features indirect light.

- - -

The main issue that makes direct comparison impossible:

Can anyone show any 3Delight render in DS of a complex scene that was ever created with UE2 with indirect light?

On the old forum adam once did a test comparing the different modes of UE2. Even a simple sphere on a plane took a lot longer to render with indirect light active in UE2.

http://forumarchive.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=173382&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

To put it different with 3Delight it is currently not possible to render with indirect lighting active in any reasonable quality / time relationship.

Please correct me on that if you have made some images with indirect light and “color bleeding” with 3Delight.


From my point of view it was exactly this lack of indirect lighting that made people turn to Reality and Luxrender.

And it is exactly the “bleeding” effect of colors that makes images look so much more realistic.

From that point of view there really is not much point in comparing render speeds.

It is not so much about the speed but the more “realistic” quality that can be achieved with other rendering solutions.

But there are enough threads on that topic allready…

- - -

My personal test render to compare speed:


My personal stress test was the “Vanilla” image with fiber hair I allready posted.

The main idea was to see how octane deals with fiber hair.
I did not pay any attention to recreate the DS materials.


The 3Delight UE2 version with default UE2 and 1 directional light took more than 48 hours.
The Octane Version default “Direct Light” “Ambient Mode” version took about 50 minutes.

on a

Win 8 Pro 64bit | Asus GTX660 Ti DCII OC, 2048MB GDDR5, 6008/967 MHz | AMD Phenom II X6 2.8GHz | 16 GB RAM

scene info.

Total Vertices :
1120546
Total Triangles :
865
Total Quads :
624195
Total Faces :
625060

- - -

For the sake of this test I post both images here.
The 3delight version is the one with the cyborg. The Cyborg and the background are composited on another layer in photoshop.
The Octane version is the one with the character alone. The octane version features depth of field.
- - -

All in all from my experience so far I can say that Octane is 10-20 times faster in ambient mode.
If you are comparing high quality indirect lighting modes that may be even a much higher factor.

- - -

If someone has made more test images with 3delight and octane please share.

- - -

In the end there is one important thing to remember:

Each of the render engines available has their plus points and also their flaws.

There probably will never be one solution that is better for all cases.

It will always depend what the user wants to achieve.

- - -

The downside of the faster solution:

In octane you will not find any cartoon shaders and displacements maps will not be supported for probably quite a long time.
You also have to deal with VRAM limits. There is not unlimited space available for textures and maps.
You need a Nvidia Graphic Card. You will have to spend some additional money for licence fees.

But I guess at least something is certain. Octane is faster.

Image Attachments
linvanoak_Vanilla_Shattering_Cyborgs_v1007.jpglinvanoak_Vanilla_Octane_Render_v1004_1920x1080.jpg
 Signature 

DAZ User Gallery / Facebook / Deviant Art

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2011-04-11
linvanchene - 18 May 2013 09:35 AM

I split this out of another thread because I can see a high risk that this may turn out into some “app war” as some moderators call it. ...

In my view, anyone who calls this an app war is misguided.  You are referring to the same app: DS.  These are different render engines that run under that app.  Any objective analysis should be considered fair and useful for the community, at large.  Real-time engines may be the way of the future and it behooves us to understand the advantages/disadvantages of each approach.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2882
Joined  2004-04-25

Isn’t it difficult to compare Octane and 3Delight as one is an unbiased render engine and one is a biased?

 Signature 

“...not world enough nor time…” 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  644
Joined  2011-03-26
icprncss - 18 May 2013 01:41 PM

Isn’t it difficult to compare Octane and 3Delight as one is an unbiased render engine and one is a biased?

Right on point.
As I tried to explain in the first point if we compare then we should at least compare some render modes that share similar traits.


The one thing you can do is make unbiased render engines behave in a more biased way by removing or at least limiting the random variables.

Exmaples:

In both luxrender and octane you can change how samples are shot out into the scene.

Instead of using “realistic” random patterns you can restrict the search for sample points to those areas that are more likely to be needed for the image.

- - -

The question then is why would you want unbiased render engines to behave more like biased ones?

The answer then would be:

If you are looking for more consistent results. When rendering animations it is preferable to use more biased render modes.

In luxrender that would be the exphoton map mode.

http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/Intro_to_ExPhotonMap

In octane that would be the direct light kernel with ambient mode.

Got no link for that one sorry.

- - -

Random fireflys can be quite noisy if they are in different locations in each frame.

- - -

In any way both of those modes could be compared to 3Delight UE2 default becasue they are more on the biased end..

- - -

 

 Signature 

DAZ User Gallery / Facebook / Deviant Art

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2003-10-09

UE2 is not the only indirect light option available in Studio.

One can use an IDL camera (quick and simple to create, though not well documented)

One can use the scripted 3delight and point cloud occlusion.

You’ll get no argument from me that UE2 is slow (uber soft are faster.. but I don’t think we’d be comparing apples to apples), but its good when you get the settings right and it can be worth the wait.  The other options seem to me to be equally good, and much faster.

If you are going to dig under the hood enough to use an external renderer, why would you not explore the options available in the program as well?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  772
Joined  2012-09-24
linvanchene - 18 May 2013 09:35 AM

From my point of view it was exactly this lack of indirect lighting that made people turn to Reality and Luxrender.

And it is exactly the “bleeding” effect of colors that makes images look so much more realistic.

From that point of view there really is not much point in comparing render speeds.

I think the bleeding effect of colors is a very minor consideration.

The important effect is lighting and shadows. Light illuminates, but it is shadows that make an object look three dimensional.

I never use UE2 when I’m trying to get anything that looks realistic.

All render engines need to fake lighting to some extent. When you are outdoors, you get light coming from the sun, but you also get light coming from all directions. Unbiased render engines attempt to model this ambient light coming from all directions and then ray trace it to produce the scene, including reflections off of surfaces in the scene. Luxrender/Octane are not modeling the interaction of sunlight with the earths atmosphere, clouds and dust in it to figure out the strength and color of light coming from all directions.  They have a model that has been constructed to approximate the correct ambient lighting. The model may have parameters to simulating a overcast day or thin clouds as well as a clear sky. They put a lot of research into those models to make the lighting look realistic.

UE2 is an attempt to provide fake ambient light in 3Delight. It is easy to add UE2 to your scene, but it is very hard to get good results using UE2 IMHO. There are other ways of “faking” ambient light in 3Delight which I think produce better results than UE2, though they probably do not get to level of realism found in the best unbiased render engines.

The other important factor is materials. If you want realistic render, you need realistic material. I know with LuxRender, you have to spend a lot of time tuning materials to get good results. Spending time tuning material in DAZ Studio will improve the realism of your 3Delight renders too.

linvanchene - 18 May 2013 09:35 AM

But I guess at least something is certain. Octane is faster.

Yes, but Octane also has limitations. It only works on some high end graphics cards. As I understand it, even on the best graphics cards it is limited to 144 RGBA textures in a scene. The size of a scene is limited by the RAM on your graphics card.

And, of course, it costs a few hundred dollars.

Graphics cards will be getting more powerful over time, and the number of textures supported will go up. CUDA apparently has a way of supporting unlimited numbers of textures in the newest graphics cards, but Octane is not using it yet. Octane and other GPU based render engines will increase in capacity over time, which will make them more realistic as mainstream render engines.

 Signature 

DAZ Gallery

Renderosity Gallery

Deviant Art Gallery

My Art Studio Thread

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 June 2013 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2006-09-01

Thanks for the example Linvanchene.  Wow!  48hrs vs 50mins and the Octane render looks much more realistic.  If that’s the general speed and quality of Octane then it definitely seems worth the money.  If they had a version for Cararra as well then it would be perfect.

Profile