I thought cinema render engine was one of the best?

[Per-Anders]

well, it depends what for. the cinema render engine despite what you might be reading is in fact a little gem (and it is indeed one of the best). but it does have it's failings and weaknesses. it's gi for instance is not as good as vrays speed wise for smooth artifact free gi. it's refraction/difraction effects do not match mental ray. it doesn't have a raytraced moblur or dof (though it does have scene moblur and vmb). it's blurry reflections/refractions (gloss) is slow (though beautiful). in general the engine is though very fast and very very easy to use.

your best bet would be to download the demo and take it for a spin, see what you can come up with, see if it fills your criteria. anything can be done with it, but on certain tasks it can be slower than you might imagine.

[Tugmaster]

Mdme_sadie said it all. Give it a try.

[twilight]

It all depends on what you're planning to do with it. If you're after photorealistic architectural interiors you won't find much better than vray these days, although that might change soon, one never knows where the next big thing is.
If you're after arch exteriors C4D will do fine, although some people (me included) find vray a bit better in that department as well.

Now, all this is a bit relative. The main reason why C4D's renderer is not so good with arch interiors is mainly due to GI issues. Are you going to use GI? Can you tell a good GI solution from a bad one? Can you live with post-processing? Will you be doing animation?
All these things might influence your decision. There's no point in spending 10 times more money on 3dsmax + vray if you're going to use 10% of it.

[tjnyc]

Another great thing about C4D's renderer is that it manages memory very well and you can render at ridiculous large resolutions that would just cripple any modest computer with other renderers.


Cheers,

[Uncle-Ox]

Hi

I've mentioned this before in a post but unless your work truly calls for it, I doubt whether incredible super photorealism is really neccessary.

For example: If you look at movies in which ILM did the CG, as long ago as Jurassic Park 3 (I mention this in particular 'cause it's the first movie in which I noticed it) you'll see that the over-all look of some scenes are more artistic than realistic. (I know they mostly use Maya but I'm trying to proove a point)

If you compare for example the hard look of some of the super photo-real architectural renderings, you sometimes see, against the soft and almost "painted", "90% real" look of the Naboo palace in The Phantom Menace, it's not difficult to decide which is more pleasing to the eye. I must say, C4D achieves this "90% real" look famously.

A more artistic rather than realistic look might even give you an edge with some architectual clients...

[Tugmaster]

I agree with Uncle Ox. Also when it comes to photorealism the renderer is only 1/3 of the solution with modeling and texturing adding to the final solution. I think C4D is capable of photorealistic Architectural indoor scenes with the right lighting and settings. No, it won't look exactly like a V-Ray render but it will look like a photorealistic C4D render though.

[umm]

I have been toying with the idea of leaving max and vray behind and going into cinema 4d mostly because of price diffrence and what i feel ease of use, but all i keep reading is c4d users complaining about its render engine. I always had the feeling it was one of the best and fastest? ...... Try Lightwave.
For certain things also the Bryce renderer can be better although it is slower than the one from Ligtwave.

Many people here seem to hate Bryce, probably because it costs only 79 bucks. You cant do meshes with it, but for meshes Metasequoia is a nice program.

[RorrKonn]

Some C4D'er our ripped over TrueSpace getting V-Ray.

A lot of LW'ers run http://www.worley.com/ (http://www.worley.com/)
If ya like Bryce,Vue is kool http://www.e-onsoftware.com/ (http://www.e-onsoftware.com/)

I have always believed it's not the Render Engine it's the 3D Artist.
I like V-Ray they have some nice Renders,but don't half to have it.
I am getting my self Studio including AR2 for Xmas in stead of V-Ray.

RorrKonn
rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com (rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com)
http://www.atomic-3d.com (http://www.atomic-3d.com/)
TS6.6 SP2,LW7.5c,Basic C4D 9 + BP2.
zBrush 2,Poser 5...+ Anything else I can afford.


What humans fear the most...Freedom.

[umm]

Its not that the rendermachine has nothing to do with it although the artist is also necessary.
Same with cameras, it doesnt help to have a Leica if you dont know how to select a good motive. Still, the Leica gives you better reds especially under shadow/darker conditions.

[rendermania]

I think we've been through this a bunch of times. The 'it depends on the artist' thing is quite unhelpful in my opinion (and also inaccurate - not everything in rendering comes down to artistic skill). There are objective things that can be said about different aspects of a renderer's quality - e.g. GI, motionblur, DOF, the strenth of its shader system, memory management, speed etc. C4D's renderer is fast, clean and well integrated - doesn't crash, renders straight to the viewports, works great with BodyPaint's raybrush, etc. But taste does come into it. If you try it out for some time and like the results/look you get from it, its probably the right renderer for you. if you look at it and find that you were hoping for something different, its time to look at other renderers.

I would prefer Vray or Mental Ray for specific applications - things that need ultra GI quality or in the case of MentalRay, custom shaders, film quality motionblur, deep rendercontrols etc. But I've spent a lot of time rendering with Cinema, so part of it may be just wanting to render with a completely different system for a change.

To the extent possible, I would look at different renderers (trial versions etc) and see which works best for you.

[flingster]

don't let those threads put you off in anyway...they show specific elements which we want to see improving...so you need to be clear on that...they also show that users don't want to actually have to move or use another renderer but they want the option and they would rather do these things in c4d. the vray users will tell you why they want vray like renders..mainly its no splotching in GI...which in tests show can be elliminated but with a lot more work and time.

C4d renderer is very very fast, very very stable, excellent multipass support, good for large stills, despite my complaints in these threads its still one of the best around imo. if you do archvis you can also use the Sketch and Toon module which is the industry leading npr imho.

[bobtronic]

I think if it comes to "normal" scanline/raytracing Cinema's renderer is one of the best in my
opinion. I have tried some other free and commercial 3D packages and found I had always
to fight to get good results. I really love how Cinema handles lights, shadows and highlights.

Bob

[thorn3d]

I'm a huge fan of C4D's raytracing. It's fast, it's clean, it looks good and it's very flexible. While it may not have GI equaling Vray/etc, it certainly has a TON of strength.

Futhermore, not ever renderer is the perfect choice for everything. I think of renderers like paper stock - sometimes you want heavy matte stock, sometimes you want glossy. Vray does nice architecture, but for broadcast work C4D + AfterEffects is a superior choice.

thorn

[Coolrider64n]

I just started using cinema 4D. I think its very nice and easy to use for a starter. I have tryed other programs and like this one the best.

[RorrKonn]

Sorta thought it went with out saying,my bad. I meant descent render engines that had all the capabilities.
once you have a descent, top of the line render engine.If you can't render,well then it's just a waste.
I would consider AR2,V-Ray descent render engines.

Well, one answer would be get all the render engines.that's all the descent top of the line render engines.
probably not the most practical answer thou.

Anyways what ever one render engine has that's killer the other will get it also.
I am waiting for the day that we have real time renders 100% of the time.
no more render times, no more renderfarms needed.render a 2 hour movie in 2 hours ,ya :)

RorrKonn
rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com (rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com)
http://www.atomic-3d.com (http://www.atomic-3d.com)
TS6.6 SP2,LW7.5c,Basic C4D 9 + BP2.
zBrush 2,Poser 5...+ Anything else I can afford.

Just think of the insanity we would lose with out 3D.

[wuensch]

so--you will waste your life waiting--
realtime looks better all the time, but rendered option that kill processors also---
wait till AR gets real photorealistic blur like MentalRay--- its very processor intensive
I still keep switching off area shadows in most of my jobs because it takes toolong--
wont even consider volumetric lighting--
oLLI



Sorta thought it went with out saying,my bad. I meant descent render engines that had all the capabilities.
once you have a descent, top of the line render engine.If you can't render,well then it's just a waste.
I would consider AR2,V-Ray descent render engines.

Well, one answer would be get all the render engines.that's all the descent top of the line render engines.
probably not the most practical answer thou.

Anyways what ever one render engine has that's killer the other will get it also.
I am waiting for the day that we have real time renders 100% of the time.
no more render times, no more renderfarms needed.render a 2 hour movie in 2 hours ,ya :)

RorrKonn
rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com (rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com)
http://www.atomic-3d.com (http://www.atomic-3d.com)
TS6.6 SP2,LW7.5c,Basic C4D 9 + BP2.
zBrush 2,Poser 5...+ Anything else I can afford.

Just think of the insanity we would lose with out 3D.

[RorrKonn]

so--you will waste your life waiting--Have no patients so waiting is not in my vocabulary.
would I like to have all the render engines ? sure.but it's not a practical idea for me to get them all.so for me it's a waste of time worrying about them all.
Studio 9 is all I need.So not worrying about other render engines.
I have TS so I could get V-Ray now if I wanted,might get it one day but it's a ways down my to get list.

RorrKonn
rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com (rorrkonn@atomic-3d.com)
http://www.atomic-3d.com (http://www.atomic-3d.com/)
TS6.6 SP2,LW7.5c,Basic C4D 9 + BP2.
zBrush 2,Poser 5...+ Anything else I can afford.

God save the Queen.

[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.