Loading...
> >

EXPORT - Octane - Fenric- Poser or Daz ?

2»

Comments

  • 3dtoday3dtoday Posts: 0
    edited May 2013

    Interesting comparison?

    Post edited by 3dtoday on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:
    Well I don't want to get into a tit for tat argument either. As far as lighting, I've done a bit of photography, so I have that base covered, thanks.


    The day you stop learning is the day you stop living. ;-)


    Principles of real world lighting can obviously be applied to 3D, however, they are still virtual lights and only mimic real world lighting- no matter the renderer or the 3D program. There are differences, and if you can learn to simulate reflected light, the less math the renderer has to calculate and the faster it will render. I imagine this works for CPU renderers and GPU renderers. The more you learn to optimize lights and shaders the better and faster your results will be.

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited February 2013

    3dtoday, if you balance your lights, and use the colors that should be the reflected colors in a scene with strategically placed lights, you will be amazed how fast Carrara can simulate GI. In less than the amount of time it takes to adjust your shaders and set up lighting in any of the GPU options, you can set up your lights in Carrara. Probably much less time when you get the hang of it. Stonemason's scenes can be a problem, for one, due to all the textures and size of geometry.

    Jim T-shirt:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_m95FqGM5A

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR45MP66i5s

    Dimension T: (check the end of these to see how super fast they render)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhchmPOWcE0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-c0xVQ50dA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5NQCQOdfo

    Check the tube light for indirect lighting. There's a tute on YouTube from Sci Fi Funk on tube lights.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Yn0ic0ggA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QskBQ1lvU0U

    Tim Payne's Lightdomes rock for faking GI. Looks just like it and they are fast at the medium settings. They work for animation. And you can add extra lights to sweeten the shot. http://www.daz3d.com/carrara-skies-lightdomes-1

    I haven't touched Octane in a while because it's still cumbersome and extra time consuming unless you are basically setting everything up the first time and then it takes longer the more stuff you put in. There's also the issue of texture limits... my GTX 470 won't handle them all so you have to reduce texture sizes and number of textures. Using lots of content is hard in those, but easy in Carrara. I like what Octane can do, but it still isn't totally physically real and you can get better, faster results by tweaking lights in Carrara and have object motion blur (though motion blur should be used sparingly otherwise you'll waste time rendering if not needed) and use of lots of content and textures.

    Post edited by Kevin Sanderson on
  • 3dtoday3dtoday Posts: 0
    edited May 2013

    well, I appreciate all the help. I really do.

    Post edited by 3dtoday on
  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited December 1969

    Doesn't mean it can't be done. Remember, Carrara doesn't have as many artists using it, so there are fewer examples. Your clip sure could have benefitted from some motion blur.

    Here are some decent clips Catharina Harders did when she was testing Carrara.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lRxWfCPpt0


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGwHCcDjc0


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_CyiHdbRvM


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDf63ufc2gY


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQcD590XhiY

  • 3dtoday3dtoday Posts: 0
    edited May 2013

    thanks

    Post edited by 3dtoday on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:

    Nah! Lol. Those aren't in the same league bro. Seriously. Sure carrara can fake some scenes with hdri, but
    that's basically a render cheat. And the most " realistic of those {you linked} " , and others I've seen, is "advanced gamey"
    Sorry, I wish it were the same. { and the motion tracking doesn't count, cause it's a real background}

    Even GPU renderers have their differences. I know some people think Octane looks more realistic than Cycles. Id say
    its very close, but I tend to agree.


    If it gets the job done then it's not cheat. Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM- Big name production houses almost always simulate GI. I doubt they would call it cheating.

  • 3dtoday3dtoday Posts: 0
    edited May 2013

    cool

    Post edited by 3dtoday on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:

    If it gets the job done then it's not cheat. Pixar, Dreamworks, ILM- Big name production houses almost always simulate GI. I doubt they would call it cheating.

    well, lets see some of their renders.

    Are you talking above live action film renders , or toons? I don't go by toons.
    Those ones done in Carrara, that i've seen anyway , I dont think are live action, studio composting, Quality.

    Heck I'm not even that Crazy about Modo Renders. Now vray, yes, for Biased I think it's the best.
    And arent some of these big houses moving to Arnold ?


    Just because a CG movie has toon characters doesn't mean it's not a valid comparison. Ignore the toon characters and look at the environments they're moving around in. Look at the lighting, the atmospherics, etc.
    I'm kind of curious as to what this advanced gamey standard is.


    As to having live action background plates not counting for rendered CG elements, clearly you've been ignoring nearly every special effects picture since Jurassic Park. Again, it's the lighting and the texturing. Many strictly CG movies 'toon or not, rely nearly as heavily on compositing as Transformers, because to save resources and render times they render in passes.


    I have no doubt that completely photo-real rendering is coming, especially with computational advancements, but it's still not here. To be able to render the most realistically you can, be it a biased engine, an un-biased engine or a CPU renderer is still going to require an understanding of CG lighting and texturing specific to that render engione. To animate in anything remotely fast, you are going to need to learn as many "cheats" as you can. I don't care what renderer it is.

  • 3dtoday3dtoday Posts: 0
    edited May 2013

    cool

    Post edited by 3dtoday on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:

    I'm not a rendering expert. I'm just an artist who goes by my eye. And so far I'm not seeing studio quality renders out of
    Carrara. At least the bulk of them. Sure, some are good. Some are usable. But, certainly not the level that people shout and claim here! It's too bad. It's very disappointing, in fact. And beyond that -- it's patently absurd ! Even Poser and Daz can do it now!


    Try this site and look at the galleries:
    http://carraracafe.com/?page_id=2066

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:
    Kevin Sanderson said:
    Doesn't mean it can't be done. Remember, Carrara doesn't have as many artists using it, so there are fewer examples. Your clip sure could have benefitted from some motion blur.

    Here are some decent clips Catharina Harders did when she was testing Carrara.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lRxWfCPpt0


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGwHCcDjc0


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_CyiHdbRvM


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDf63ufc2gY


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQcD590XhiY

    Nah! Lol. Those aren't in the same league bro. Seriously. Sure carrara can fake some scenes with hdri, but
    that's basically a render cheat. And the most " realistic of those {you linked} " , and others I've seen, is "advanced gamey"
    Sorry, I wish it were the same. { and the motion tracking doesn't count, cause it's a real background}

    Even GPU renderers have their differences. I know some people think Octane looks more realistic than Cycles. Id say
    its very close, but I tend to agree.



    I said they were decent, not great. And I looked at your link again and if it hadn't been a tanned character and didn't have sunlight, it would've been close to Mec4D's render of Buddy. It still looks like something out of a good game engine to me. The only thing that looks real to me is the sunlight and the background.

    I still say you can do something as good if not better in Carrara (with motion blur, too!) and faster with a decent light rig. Seems most Octane users use HDRI. You don't think that's a cheat? And the animations people have pulled off in Octane that I know about generally use direct lighting (raytracing) and not pathtracing, which takes longer and is Octane's claim to fame. Octane is great, but it was designed for architecture visualization and will take time to get what it needs for real studio animation use. To my eye, Arion looks better and is more flexible, though it's not limited to GPU only and Octane may not be one day.

    Yes, a few studios are using Arnold, but that's a raytracer using really good cheats (it's the only way it can do stuff fast), and who knows if we ever get to use it? Last I heard Renderman is still mostly the standard in Hollywood. None of those are GPU renderers.
    Here's Arnold's founder Marcos Fajardo talking about Arnold and he's really excited about new Intel processors on the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwRpJP6ApA

    I'm not against Octane, Cycles, Arion or whatever new GPU stuff is coming, but for animation on your own, you have to know lighting or you will get bogged down time wise. A computer program isn't going to save your butt when a director/client wants to make it fit his/her vision.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    And I want to reiterate again, I'm not adverse to having another render option, but I would rather DAZ find a way to open the architecture and let a 3rd party developer do it, so DAZ can concentrate it's resources on updating some cludgy and/or buggy features that it already has in Carrara.

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited December 1969

    3dtoday said:

    I'm not a rendering expert. I'm just an artist who goes by my eye. And so far I'm not seeing studio quality renders out of
    Carrara. At least the bulk of them. Sure, some are good. Some are usable. But, certainly not the level that people shout and claim here! It's too bad. It's very disappointing, in fact. And beyond that -- it's patently absurd ! Even Poser and Daz can do it now!


    It goes back to what I said before. Carrara has a small universe of users compared to other software. There are more of everyone compared to Carrara users. There just aren't enough talented users of Carrara posting wonderful stuff for all to see. And many Carrara users are not in the photo real camp. Many Carrara users are hobbyists and they do it for fun. But the tools are there to get it done and quickly if you take the time to learn how to do it.

Sign In or Register to comment.