Lightwave Render vs Final Render?

[RobinOberg]

im guessing FR would win in speed but LW would win in anything else...

[ToddD]

I'm a max user, have also used lightwave at work a few times, lightwave renderer is probably the best straight out of the box renderer available. FR has all the bells and whistles, GI, SSS, HDRI etc. I don't know the full feature list of lightwaves' renderer. I wouldn't worry about which is better seeing as how they're 2 different apps you're comparing Max/Lightwave.:)

[Eugeny]

I don't see et any real good realistic work with final render... Its the same renderer like in Cinema 4D (both from Cebas and use the same technology) and as C4D user i can't compare this renderer to LW... It's nice but not kick ass...
The one thing is the optimization - i think in FR u have mach more options to deal with. IMHO the real competitor is Mental Rey... But still i saw few real kick ass works, just go to XSI gallery and compare this gallery to Newtek gallery :)

[NanoGator]

A renderer is only as good as the artist who's controlling it. :)

[minus]

FR has SSS which is nice. --- But I found it to be quite a bit fidly back in my MAX days. -- FR was version 1.01 then... the final gathering just has too many settings to get right.... to many renders looking at green dots to make sure your sample points were right... -- LW just works..... that is it's greatest asset... that way you can spend your time on lighting and camera angles, and compositon a lot more. It should be said that most render engines can be pushed outside of their "normal" look. -- It just takes someone who has really figured out the render engines strengths.

[New]

I have done some tests, i think that FR is faster and the interpolated GI works better, but lightwave seems to be more controlable.

[JuRrAsStOiL]

Well, finalRender is NOT EQUAL to cinema4Ds renderer.
Cinema got Radiosity, not GI. GI is a lot faster and
better for animations. Radiosity is more accurate,
but it is somehow useless for animations. I'm a really
big fan of fR, it's fast, adjustable, accurate, complex
(in functions, not in handling), good color bleeding,
assf*cking fast caustics 3.000.000 Photons through
glass in just 12 seconds, amazing.
I never used lightwave's renderer, some pics are
really cool, but I think that lightwave's materials
have a big influence on this. And I don't think
that you can compare fR and lightwave's native
renderer. fR is a Raytracer with GI and many
other interessting functions, but lightwave's renderer
is a full material-effect-raytracer-damn-whole-thing.

"It's the artist, not the tools"

BTW: Some of the algorythms of Cinema4Ds renderer
are included in finalRender but it has been updated
and wait for Stage-1 (Hyper- or Ultra-GI-Engine, don't
know exactly how it is called...)

[rooc]

I agree fully with NanoGator.
The difference is rather in authors than in renderers :)

[nx01]

How is Max 5's new render compare to FR or LW's now that Max 5 has a new render engine?

[RobinOberg]

Originally posted by JuRrAsStOiL
Well, finalRender is NOT EQUAL to cinema4Ds renderer.
Cinema got Radiosity, not GI. GI is a lot faster and
better for animations. Radiosity is more accurate,
but it is somehow useless for animations. I'm a really
big fan of fR, it's fast, adjustable, accurate, complex
(in functions, not in handling), good color bleeding,
assf*cking fast caustics 3.000.000 Photons through
glass in just 12 seconds, amazing.
I never used lightwave's renderer, some pics are
really cool, but I think that lightwave's materials
have a big influence on this. And I don't think
that you can compare fR and lightwave's native
renderer. fR is a Raytracer with GI and many
other interessting functions, but lightwave's renderer
is a full material-effect-raytracer-damn-whole-thing.

"It's the artist, not the tools"

BTW: Some of the algorythms of Cinema4Ds renderer
are included in finalRender but it has been updated
and wait for Stage-1 (Hyper- or Ultra-GI-Engine, don't
know exactly how it is called...)

GI stands for Global Illumination and radiosity is a type of global illumination as it reflects light off already raytraced surfaces to globalize the light from less lightsources. the simplest GI would be a dome of lights... or perhaps a large area light...

[stephen2002]

I really wish you people would stop saying "It is not the program, it is the artist".

Try making Blender do some of these images that I see done with Lightwave or other apps and you would waste your time, only to see that you exceeded the light count (256) or vertex limit (approx 2million).

There is only so much you can do with certain programs. It is also a matter of speed, and which one suits your tastes.

[takkun]

Originally posted by RobinOberg

the simplest GI would be a dome of lights... or perhaps a large area light...

I thought that dome light rigs were used for faking GI. :surprised

[takkun]

Originally posted by stephen2002
I really wish you people would stop saying "It is not the program, it is the artist".


I totally agree. You need both- a good program and great artistic skills. That's why I feel sad when I see great artists wasting their time with mediocre software.

[Das]

I think of it as similar to a photographer's relationship with a camera.

Yes, a professional photographer can create some wonderful photographs with a cheap point-and-shoot camera, but those aren't the cameras pros buy. They buy the multi-thousand dollar SLR pro cameras, because the top of the line cameras offer them much more control over the image.

A top quality renderer, similarly, offers a talented artist a much more powerful and varied 'toolbox'.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.