PDA

View Full Version : FinalRender Q/A please!


soccerrprp
12-06-2005, 04:23 AM
1. How exactly does finalrender work? When one purchases finalrender, does one get a stand-alone program and a c4d plugin that utilizes the power of the renderer via c4d interface? Or is the plugin a "program" that accesses the native c4d renderer to create the images faster, clearer, crisper, etc.?
2. Am I correct in saying that the "translator" is the plugin?
3. I've heard much about the render speed by people with more than one cpu. What value would it be to have fr-2 on my own desktop with one PIV cpu?

Thanks!

jsls
12-06-2005, 04:43 AM
It is a plug in and basicly you activate it in the effects menu. It is extreamly fast so if you only have one CPU I think you will still see significant speed performance over AR. You can use fR materials or even just uses cinemas material system.....there are a million settings, so play with this, and play with that...then buckets o'hoy!

fluffouille
12-06-2005, 05:23 AM
FR2 is not a plugin, it is a complete separate application, but there is also a plugin that allows C4D to translate and communicate with it.
It doesn't appear as two different applications, though, as it is seamlessly integrated into C4D (via the effect tab, in the render options).

FR2 is overall faster than AR2, and GIs are cleaner. There are quite a lot of things that differ, it is after all a new render engine, that comes with its own look and feel.
Some effects are a lot better too, like the depth of field and SSS.

A lot of control and option can be tempered with, and the shader tree, which allows to go more in-depth into the engine itself.

Then, there is the distributed render, which offers the possibility to render the same image using up to 10 processors (be it static or animation files).

AR is still a great render, though, and I think the greatest strength of FR2 over AR2 so far is in its clean flicker-free GIs when animating.

andronikos916
12-06-2005, 10:38 AM
FR2 is not a plugin, it is a complete separate application, but there is also a plugin that allows C4D to translate and communicate with it.
It doesn't appear as two different applications, though, as it is seamlessly integrated into C4D (via the effect tab, in the render options).

FR2 is overall faster than AR2, and GIs are cleaner. There are quite a lot of things that differ, it is after all a new render engine, that comes with its own look and feel.
Some effects are a lot better too, like the depth of field and SSS.

A lot of control and option can be tempered with, and the shader tree, which allows to go more in-depth into the engine itself.

Then, there is the distributed render, which offers the possibility to render the same image using up to 10 processors (be it static or animation files).

AR is still a great render, though, and I think the greatest strength of FR2 over AR2 so far is in its clean flicker-free GIs when animating.

agree 100%... just want to add that for some users, shader tree might seem confusing. At least happened to me that I hated Maya mat. editor.

I am still strugling to understanding it.. but I have spent less than 10hrs..

moka.studio
12-06-2005, 10:54 AM
agree 100%... just want to add that for some users, shader tree might seem confusing. At least happened to me that I hated Maya mat. editor.

I am still strugling to understanding it.. but I have spent less than 10hrs..

Well you can always use C4d shaders instead of the FR tree if you prefer to work with these, as most of them work fine. - or you can use a combination of both.
The Shader tree takes a while to get used to it, but there is a lot of depth there. And it gives a lot of advantages even in creating simple shaders, such a copy-paste several connected links at once into a shader, or to quickly try out different alternatives within the same shader....

rob rhodes
12-06-2005, 11:13 AM
does final render work the same with 9.1 as 9.5? So if you had 9.1 and bought FR there would be little point in upgrading to 9.5? As you get a 'better' renderer and also the ability to bake objects the same - just no volumetric skies, (would be my main reason for upgrading).

FR looks mighty complicated with the amount of settings you can tweek - will it work just using a similar approach that you might use with AR - so a few basic setting but getting a much cleaner image and faster. Obviously i can see the benefit of having such high levels of control - but with something like maxwell the beauty of it is you save a lot of time + frustration in set-up (hopefully when its R1) and get a great image out of it. Everyone knows it is possible to get great pics out of AR but they also know that it can be hit and miss and time consuming! So just wondering if you can bypass a lot of those controls and get a good image still?

Also what are the worst features of FR? Is there anything AR does better? Lastly, im sure its been asked before but i can't find it - does it work with sketch and toon and storm tracer?

Cheers, Rob

JamesMK
12-06-2005, 11:26 AM
does final render work the same with 9.1 as 9.5? So if you had 9.1 and bought FR there would be little point in upgrading to 9.5? As you get a 'better' renderer and also the ability to bake objects the same - just no volumetric skies, (would be my main reason for upgrading).
AFAIK there's a 9.5 version and a 9.x version, so it should work either way. I'm not 100% sure though, but 99%. Although FR has a physical sky, it's not currently as feature-rich as the C4D sky module. The baking tools of 9.5 are more advanced that those in FR.

FR looks mighty complicated with the amount of settings you can tweek - will it work just using a similar approach that you might use with AR - so a few basic setting but getting a much cleaner image and faster. Obviously i can see the benefit of having such high levels of control - but with something like maxwell the beauty of it is you save a lot of time + frustration in set-up (hopefully when its R1) and get a great image out of it. Everyone knows it is possible to get great pics out of AR but they also know that it can be hit and miss and time consuming! So just wondering if you can bypass a lot of those controls and get a good image still?
In my experience, the default settings in FR usually give you very good results from the get-go, so most of the time you will only need to tweak a small subset of the controls available. In a typical GI-based scene, I'd say it's definitely easier to get good results in FR.

Also what are the worst features of FR? Is there anything AR does better?
The FR multi-pass functionality (render elements) is not yet on par with AR. That's my main reason for still using AR a lot. Some types of effects are also slower in FR, such as high-precision volumetrics (with low sample radii). And depending on what you do, it can be argued that while FR's true 3D DOF is by far superior in quality, it is also a lot slower than Z-based blurring that AR uses.

Lastly, im sure its been asked before but i can't find it - does it work with sketch and toon and storm tracer?
I have not tested that, but considering the nature of those effects, I seriously doubt they work.



.

moka.studio
12-06-2005, 11:28 AM
edit> James had answered this better

one point,
S+T will not render in the same rendering as FR, but you can render it as separate image and comp it . I have always done that with AR+ Sketch anyway, as it is much faster and more flexible.

fluffouille
12-06-2005, 11:51 PM
Yes, you'll need to composite Storm Tracer too, but it's not that complicated, just another render pass. These are specific external post effects, so don't expect compatibility here.

So far, I would say that what FR has the most trouble to translate from C4D are the new area lights. Not all are compatible, and that is a big hole (at least for me), since I use them a lot.

The big idea behind the fact that you have a lot of settings is to biaise as much as possible so you retain good quality but you gain on the render side, that's why FR is so strong for animation compared to AR and Maxwell.
You have also a lot more control for your creativity, which is a good thing, since if you let the render engine take control over you, your image is lifeless or lack personality.
Suitable for archviz and pack shots, but not for all kind of prods'.

Don't be scared by the number of settings, though, a lot of things can be done with only a few options.

Edwin Braun
12-07-2005, 08:50 AM
@JamesMK
>>The baking tools of 9.5 are more advanced that those in FR.<>

Why do you say this? What is better in CINEMA ? How I see it our baking is much more advanced. Let me know what we missed in your work flow!
edwin

JamesMK
12-07-2005, 11:25 AM
@JamesMK
>>The baking tools of 9.5 are more advanced that those in FR.<>

Why do you say this? What is better in CINEMA ? How I see it our baking is much more advanced. Let me know what we missed in your work flow!
edwin
Nah, it's not much that differs really, and looking at my particular workflow, there are no glaring omissions (I would probably have been ranting about that in the beta forum if that was the case ;) )

BUT, since this was a general question, looking at the two bakers side by side, C4D does have a few more options, such as the built-in UV remapping, a wider range of supported bitmap formats (including HDR), and the possibility to bake sequenced textures (a user definable range of frames).

No biggies after all, and considering what FR adds in terms of rendering power, it's definitely no deal-breaker.




.

lllab
12-07-2005, 01:47 PM
FR for me is all i ever wished to have in AR. some parts are missing still for a 100% integration, but i think they will ba added as much as possible.

for a version 1.0 FR is a dream:-)
cheers
stefan

AdamT
12-07-2005, 02:08 PM
Gotta say that I love fR. It's quite excellent for a 1.0 product. I look forward to better learning materials, improved stability (though it's not bad now), and expanded shader controls.

lllab
12-07-2005, 02:22 PM
i second that!

cheers
stefan

jondoe0ne
12-07-2005, 02:35 PM
can someone post a list of the shaders that don't work with FR? i'm also curious if the 3rd party made plugins (i.e. translucent pro) work in combination with FR. thank you.

lllab
12-07-2005, 02:44 PM
no thirdparty of course,
no 3d shaders
no pyrocluster
some of the "effects" shaders like lumas, proximal, spline etc.

sss work with some limitation, but fr has better SSS anyways.
distorter works as node.

all other work, including the great sla noises:-)

actually the only one i am missing is the lumas shader.

stefan

fluffouille
12-07-2005, 03:31 PM
improved stability (though it's not bad now)
What kind of stability issue do you have Adam?
So far, I'm having a hard time making it crash, so if you have an issue, I would like to reprot it, if possible :)

AdamT
12-07-2005, 03:38 PM
What kind of stability issue do you have Adam?
So far, I'm having a hard time making it crash, so if you have an issue, I would like to reprot it, if possible :)
Nothing repeatable or I'd have reported it already. For the most part it's been quite stable.

Ernest Burden
12-07-2005, 03:39 PM
What kind of stability issue do you have Adam?
So far, I'm having a hard time making it crash, so if you have an issue, I would like to reprot it, if possible :)

I thought we've covered that before--if not here then on the Cebas forum. For me the only stabilty issue has been with DR rendering. Maybe a crash or two with DR turned off, though.

There are some other odd bits, like difusion channel in a Cinema material only working if its set to 100% strength. Odd, but true.

Overall a great product. On the cebas/C4D forum you can hear the crickets. On the Maxwell forum, its angry mods and neighbor-against-neighbor street fights.

Oh, I got my check for my first project rendered with fR2. What more do we need to see fR2 as a success than people earning a living with it?

fluffouille
12-07-2005, 03:45 PM
I'm glad you all like it, it sure is a great product for a version 1.0 :)

Yes, DR poses some problems on big scenes sometimes, but I think it's overall a memory problem, that they are looking at.
I will report the diffusion problem, never paid attention before.

Thalaxis
12-07-2005, 04:42 PM
Nothing repeatable or I'd have reported it already. For the most part it's been quite stable.

I've had only two repeatable problems, one of them is memory and one is network (the downside to using wireless networking in a big city). The memory problem has been easy to prevent when I remember to reduce the max displacement parameter from 8 to something more reasonable, like something smaller than 8. :)

JDP
12-07-2005, 08:11 PM
I get a runtime error pretty regularly when using the shader tree followed by c4d quitting. It happens when adjusting parameters of the nodes in the AM. This has happened on two different machines. I'm using R9.5, Win XP pro. Is anyone else getting this issue? Apart from that fR has been stable for me.

Thalaxis
12-07-2005, 08:58 PM
I've spent quite a bit of time experimenting with the shader tree, and I haven't had any problems like that so far.

Now, to get past the "let's see what happens when I add this node!" mode and actually attempt to create some interesting and/or useful shaders...

JDP
12-08-2005, 02:41 AM
Hmm, I've tried to see if I could get to the bottom of the issue and couldn't make the problem recur. In my previous experiments I must have been doing something in particular to make it happen. I haven't had that much time to be in fR due to a heavy workload but at some point I'll probably do something that will make the error happen. Once I know what's causing the issue I'll report it.

Edwin Braun
12-08-2005, 08:40 AM
Yes lets us know what is causing this.
Tha's the problem with complex software, nailing down a bug that is based on a chain of commands is really hard to find.

edwin

howzit
12-11-2005, 05:49 AM
But fR is integrated extremely well into Cinema, so it almost seems like a different native engine.

I have always wondered how FR is integrated "extremely" well into Cinema when you have to redo light setups, (one of the main 9.5 upgrade features = AREA LIGHTS, AO),
AND it uses a far more complicated shading system, a completely different system?
So;

no deep shadow maps,

no area lights

no tinted falloff

no thirdparty of course,

no 3d shaders

no pyrocluster

no effects shader lumas

no effects shader proximal

no effects shader sline e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c.....

no multi-pass rendering

no skecth and toon


One of the key corner stones of Cinema, and its success thus far: EASE of use (Cinema is notoriuos for this). So when I read posts of the tight integration, I thought of something like AR, but after reviewing FR and trying to see what exactly the integration is, maybe the GUI is tightly integrated?
I must be missing something.
Could someone post an example of something an FR shader can do that a Cinema shader cannot?
Sorry for sounding negative about FR, that is not what I am saying, I am actaully thinking of purchasing FR, and would like to spark a discussion about these "tight integration" and "more felxible shading system" cards being thrown around.
One of the selling points of FR is that it is great for animators becuase of FRs speed. BUT, without pyroclucter and sketch and toon, this is one of the biggest things in animation. Now I know someone is going to say "it depends on what kind of animimation, I use it for architectual fly throughs e.t.c...."
I only mention this becuase Cinema is actually one of the KEY choices of software for animation in the broadcast/motion graphics indusrty, which I think is a greater number than archi fly throughs, so when one says animation, a lot of animation being done in Cinema is for broadcast/motion graphics, which is a lot of pyrocluster, thinking particles, and plug-ins such as pathdeformer, storm tracer e.t.c. And these are rendered using multi-pass alot for After Effects compositing.

Maybe we should say "FR is great for simple GI animations, that dont involve a lot of the modules for Cinema, and most of the third party plug-ins?"

I hope you can see why I ask where the "tight intergration" is......when you cannot utalise ALL the things I just listed.
I am only trying to start a healthy discussion here, so please dont flame me

. :p :p

fluffouille
12-11-2005, 10:37 AM
no deep shadow maps,

no area lights

no tinted falloff

no thirdparty of course,

no 3d shaders

no pyrocluster

no effects shader lumas

no effects shader proximal

no effects shader sline e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c.....

no multi-pass rendering

no skecth and toon


Of course not all features are supported, what else do you expect from a 3rd party render engine that is at its V1 state and have only been around for 1 month 1/2?
When we state that FR2 is very well integrated into Cinema, it means what it means : 95% of C4D features are supported out of the thousands different things you can think of.
It means that if you open an old scene, 95% of the things you can see in the scene are going to be rendered without modifying them. If that's not compatibility, I don't know what to say more.
Ah yes, you could try and check compatibility with Maxwell. Good luck.

Don't expect 3DShaders, 3rd party plugins and advanced effects like S&T to be supported, no render engine is going that far into integration with any 3D software.

plugins are way too many for them to try and be compatible with them all. Do you also really think they are going to dedicate developement time to things they are not sure are going to be supported in the future? Of course not.
Think of it that way : do you expect Storm Tracer to be compatible with Fast and Fur and be able to use its effects? Do you expect any plugin to support and make use of other plugins effects (mind you, I'm talking about effects here, not geometry)?

I wanted to point out that area lights are supported, although not fully from 9.5 (no shapes and new features). It may come in the future, though. FR has also its own area lights.
Multi pass rendering is also supported to some extent, not as far as C4D, but it's a start. More may come later too.

Cebas did a good job at integration, maybe not to your liking but enough for them to release the product in a timely manner, for a fair price and to please the majority of their customers.
Of course, there will always be something not supported, or not supported properly, but give them some time as it is a fairly recent software that needs maturing.

Since you are on the skeptical side of things, I would suggest you wait for a demo version and see if it fits your needs.

Oh, and don't think of us as crooked car dealers, we are just reporting out of experience how is the software, not forcing a sale on anybody.

JamesMK
12-11-2005, 10:53 AM
I hope you can see why I ask where the "tight intergration" is......when you cannot utalise ALL the things I just listed.
Well, it's true that there are some C4D things that FR does not support. In my opinion, "tight integration" means that once your scene is set up, with adjustments for any unsupported features, you can work with it just as if you were using AR. That is, you don't have to fiddle around with any external editors, there's no file logistics involved etcetera - you simply press 'render' and it renders. On the other hand, FR adds things that AR cannot do, like true 3D motionblur and 3D DOF.

Anyway, the features not supported by FR is what has made me say "it depends on what you're doing" when people ask if they would benefit from having FR. Then again, I'm sure this is not an unusual situation. Does MentalRay, Vray or PRMan support all the features of the various applications it plugs into? I would guess not. It's just a trade-off you have to deal with no matter what, whenever you use a non-native renderer :shrug:

So, like with all questions regarding "what 3D package should I use?" it all comes down to the old saying, that users have to try it themselves in order to see if it will work for their personal needs. And apparently this goes for renderers as well.
You can't rely on other opinions.



.

lllab
12-11-2005, 11:04 AM
area lights are supported(rectangular)

multipass is supported ( as renderelements)

material system is great with its nodes and much more control as c4ds system. only in a few parts c4d has more things like lumas and some special shaders.
95% of all c4d shaders work too.

and it supports a lot of things cinema dont has yet:

like excellent bucket & DR rendering- ultra fast!

a choice of blazing fast and realistic GI systems, far more advanced than current c4dsolutions

much better and much faster AA, with very deep control again

much faster and more beautiful MB

much faster and detailes subpolydisplacment.

...just to name a few.

no qustion c4d is very nice and very easy to learn, but FR has defenitly its part here too, and it will open new marktes toc4d i think.

i always wonder why some c4d users react so agressiv to other renderengines- the are no enemies they are our friends! you also dont react in such a way to other thirdparty plugins- dont you?

FR is a very nice adddon to c4d, it complements it well, and there is no other solution that is integrated so well in cinema for this task.
it is natural that you have to readjust somethings- if it would look the same i wouldnt need the other engine- wouldnt i? ;-)

cheers
stefan

og_reborn
12-12-2005, 06:48 PM
I'm sorry I have to ask...

....

....

what about hair?

*ducks behind desk*

fluffouille
12-12-2005, 07:02 PM
You can generate polygons out of Hair and render them without problems with any renderer, but don't expect the special shader to work.
Since polygon hairs are generated at render time, it should also render animated with dynamics and all that fuss.

talos72
12-12-2005, 07:09 PM
I think seeing FR as a complimentary tool for C4D users is the best way of looking at it. Simply put, users may need to set up scenes ahead of time knowing which renderer will be used (if they want absolute control). I don't think Cebas wrote FR to completely replace AR but as an additional option for users. I have done some basic test renders, and could already say FR is pretty darn fast and has a unique quality of its own. The best way to know is to test the renderer for yourself.

paulselhi
12-29-2005, 10:15 AM
Checking out the cebas forum i was amazed to find that FR does not support pyrocluster, cebas make both fr and pc so though other things can be forgiven for not being suported missing out PC is a real let down

Rich-Art
12-29-2005, 11:01 AM
I see I'm not the only one. I think it is real strange that Pyrocluster is not supported.

Peace,
Rich-Art. :thumbsup:

paulselhi
12-29-2005, 04:05 PM
If any one has the time i would be interested to see a comparisson of AR and FR on the c4d petals scene, render times, shadow handling and color correction. I think this scene really showed of the new color correction in ar2.5 but i am sure FR could do as good if not a better job

soccerrprp
12-30-2005, 01:18 PM
Can anyone tell me more about FR shader tree setup? I've read the description on the CEBAS website and it does not seem easy to create many of the most common textures used and created (ie. wax, etc.)

Is there going to be a finalshaders for fr-2 c4d for example? Or a MUCH more detailed tutorial(s) or explanation of how to create shaders using the tree shader?

paulselhi
12-30-2005, 01:37 PM
Learning abour FR2 is going to be tricky as there are very few people who have it and even they are just starting to get the feel of it

the problem is no demo, i think cebas are making a mistake by not making a demo available, i can't see to many people shelling out hundreds of dollars for something they can't test drive. Now cebas make TP and pyrocluster, both are incorporated as optional modules for c4d and as such can be tried out in the demo version of c4d, perhaps maxon should make Fr2 a module thus it would be avail;ble in the demo version of c4d

trescool
12-30-2005, 01:55 PM
mmmmmmmmm.......
Final Render has a pedigree a mile long.( Not like that other render)
I doubt that there will be a demo.
It is not for the average home user it is set up for studios.
There are a few examples included, but there is a wealth of
info available from existing users of FR for max & maya.

JDP
12-30-2005, 01:57 PM
As far as I know Cebas don't make TP and Pyrocluster for C4d, Maxon just borrowed some technology from them and it is extremely unlikely that something like fR2 will become a module as it is a Cebas product.

Thalaxis
12-30-2005, 03:02 PM
Can anyone tell me more about FR shader tree setup? I've read the description on the CEBAS website and it does not seem easy to create many of the most common textures used and created (ie. wax, etc.)


It's not all that easy to learn, that's true. It's very deep. And being able to poke around with a ray-hit is pretty wild, though it does take a bit of understanding how the stuff works in order to figure out what to do with it.

If you want an example of a shader tree system to tinker with, in the absence of a demo version of fR-2, check out DarkTree Textures. It will at least give you a sense for what it's like to build a shader with a shader tree, though without fR-2's tight integration.

I'm still just at the experimenting stage... that alone is a lot of fun.

paulselhi
12-30-2005, 03:29 PM
If your going to play with DT i suggest you book your analyst up for a few sessions, DT is COMPLEX and for something so "powerful" i am suprized there is very little mention of it's use considering how well known the darksim shaders are

fluffouille
12-30-2005, 04:20 PM
Learning abour FR2 is going to be tricky as there are very few people who have it and even they are just starting to get the feel of it

the problem is no demo, i think cebas are making a mistake by not making a demo available, i can't see to many people shelling out hundreds of dollars for something they can't test drive. Now cebas make TP and pyrocluster, both are incorporated as optional modules for c4d and as such can be tried out in the demo version of c4d, perhaps maxon should make Fr2 a module thus it would be avail;ble in the demo version of c4d
Before they ever put out a demo version, some things need to be done first, like the Mac version ;)

CGTalk Moderation
12-30-2005, 04:20 PM
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.