50% Presentation:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g4o8EA24ZVyw_mvPPGl5WtZX7HuQE6TBTBeOhvY3_zA/edit?usp=sharing

 

Render Engine Research:

Options:

Redshift:

Lucas uses Redshift as well. It takes more fiddling around to get production-ready results, and takes a little longer to render. I read through a bunch of articles comparing Octane, Arnold, the physical renderer and Redshift. The general consensus is: None of these renderers will make your work any better and it is very dependent on the artist what renderer works best for their projects. Many professionals have multiple render engines and chose project by project what makes the most sense to use.

Octane:

Octane boasts on being “insanely fast” compared to the Cinema 4d physical renderer. In some test renders, it was incredibly fast (about twice the speed of C4d’s physical renderer) But it wasn’t utilizing my entire graphics card… only about 15 % of it. This seems to be a pretty common issue, and I think some quick tinkering will really unlock its speed. This was a quick render I did in Octane.

OctaneCut1 from Ben Gillespie CU TAM on Vimeo.

 

I really like the way it calculated the lighting and materials. The lighting was just an HDRI and the materials were octane’s default materials. I think Octane will be the best choice of render engine going forward because it won’t drastically change the workflow and will allow for faster and better unbiased render results.

Physical Renderer:  boo. Cool pictures, but took every ounce of computational effort from my computer for hours and I didn’t love that.

Comments(0)

Leave a Comment