PDA

View Full Version : Oi Maya! Render this!


halfworld
02-17-2006, 10:55 AM
Something to share...

Here are the project statistics for our recent BBC job, unfortunatly I can't share the images (NDA n' all).

We had 10 days to model about 2 SqKM of Manchester city centre — with new plans coming through from the Architects for most of those 10 days — suffice to say, it was one of those projects. We never got the texturing or lighting nailed so even if I could, I probably wouldn't post the images ;)

Ian

Giacomo_M
02-17-2006, 02:17 PM
Modeling what sounds like fifty city blocks in 10 days--how did you even begin to correctly model such a large number of buildings?

(I know there's something called OGLE that lets you pull 3D data out of Google Earth--did you use that?)

Please advise.

GM

NorthernLights
02-17-2006, 02:45 PM
Thirty million polygons...yeah baby! :bounce:

halfworld
02-17-2006, 02:57 PM
There were some large areas of empty space thankfully! :)

I think it was 19 or 20 towers + a bridge that we modelled, I'll absolve myself of any credit in that department, three others did that with blistering pace in FormZ going from a master-plan.

I spent all my time in EI texturing/ lighting/ rendering and adding extra details to the buildings like lights and furniture. I also did a day to night conversion and some post.

Many 14+ hour days were done!
Ian

Vizfizz
02-17-2006, 04:52 PM
30 million polys... sheesh.. the thread should be more aptly named: Hey Maya, choke on this. Ian.. you'd make a horrible Previs artist.. ;)

harryb
02-17-2006, 05:30 PM
So 30,000,000 polys, over 100 lights. . . . That would take Camera what -- 2, maybe 2 1/2 minutes at HD res? :)

It makes you realize why there are a lot of Maya rendering TDs out there! Maybe Camera and mentalray, Renderman, vRay and Brazil should have a quality/speed showdown?

Sure, we all know Camera would win but by how much?

Vizfizz
02-17-2006, 07:06 PM
You'd be surprised though. Some of those proprietary renderers aren't as sluggish as you think. Maya's internal renderer on the other hand... ugh.. what a dog. Mental Ray, though pretty is slooow too. (At least in my opinion)

halfworld
02-17-2006, 07:29 PM
I dunno Brian... at least I'd make you look good ;)

When I did a phong render of those 30 million polys I seem to remember it coming out (5000 pixels wide) inside 5 minutes.... I also seem to remember choking on that fact and being ever so proud of our EI :)

I think i should change my signature to "Work hard, render fast, leave a 30 million polygon corpse." ™

Ian

Vizfizz
02-17-2006, 08:15 PM
Lance Evans told me that he was doing some tests with Turtle that were giving Camera a run for its money.

The problem is, its so difficult to measure performance with renderers. So many ways of doing things..how do you really make for a fair comparison?

Igors
02-17-2006, 08:25 PM
Well, sometimes (and often) "disadvantages" are only continuations of "advantages" (and vice versa)

>>..we've rested on Camera's laurels too long..<<

IMHO it's better always to remember this 200% true sentence

harryb
02-17-2006, 09:24 PM
Lance Evans told me that he was doing some tests with Turtle that were giving Camera a run for its money.

The problem is, its so difficult to measure performance with renderers. So many ways of doing things..how do you really make for a fair comparison?


"Turtle"? That doesn't really sound fast. . . .Now "Hare" or "Rabbit" now we're talkin'! ;)

halfworld
02-18-2006, 08:02 AM
Lance Evans told me that he was doing some tests with Turtle that were giving Camera a run for its money.

I'm not sure "run for its money." is the best choice of words ;)

1 render-farm licence of Turtle (without GUI) costs a lot more then the whole EIAS package with unlimited render-farm licences.

http://www.illuminatelabs.com/
The gallery is worth a look to see what we're missing though (a two edged remark if ever there was one!) :)
Ian

Vizfizz
02-18-2006, 04:32 PM
That is very true... if you factor in cost, the EIAS is the clear winner.

harryb
02-19-2006, 09:25 PM
I'm not sure "run for its money." is the best choice of words ;)

1 render-farm licence of Turtle (without GUI) costs a lot more then the whole EIAS package with unlimited render-farm licences.

http://www.illuminatelabs.com/
The gallery is worth a look to see what we're missing though (a two edged remark if ever there was one!) :)
Ian

Yeah, I just looked at their gallery. I didn't see how Turtle handles Maya's fur, tubes, subsurface scattering and particle effects. For $995 Renderman for Maya can handle that stuff (possibly a little slower). But the photoreal hard surface stuff is very convincing.

Camera is still a very impressive renderer IMO.

I guess "turtle" is meant to be a pun, judging from the rabbit logo. Or maybe it's an acronym for "Totally Unique Rendering Technology and Lighting Engine"? Just guessing.

sacslacker
02-19-2006, 10:08 PM
I've used both turtle and Renderman for Maya, no question about it. RMfM is leaps and bounds better.

I'm still trying to learn EI but camera seems pretty darn sweet too.

Vizfizz
02-19-2006, 10:33 PM
Hey Brian...

Still hoping to hear about your experiences with the program. Would like to know what you like and don't like about the program.

Oh.. I know how much you like shaders. I've been helping out the Igors (the authors of several shaders on Konkeptoine's site) with some of their manuals and all I can say is, their next round of shaders are pretty sweet. Very handy stuff indeed.

sacslacker
02-20-2006, 12:40 AM
Hey hey, well I'm finishing up some application work (java programmer in transition here) so I have to admit, I haven't devoted the time I really need to. So far, the interface is a bit of a departure from what I'm used to but it's pretty easy to figure out. I like that. Once I finish this job I'll be back to EI school full time =).

I do love shaders and I've already decided there are a bunch of shaders I want. Now where to start! I know I'm supposed to wait until I need a shader to buy it but what fun is that?! Ha!

I still check this forum every day though. I'm happy with my EI so far I can say that.

halfworld
03-08-2006, 01:15 PM
So, one of the images we did for the Beeb made it into the Manchester Evening News last night, we removed the BBC branding at the clients request.

http://homepage.mac.com/cake_or_death/beebsite.jpg

Look at all that furniture ;)
Ian

Oh, and GM, the area of the site modelled was 1 million sq ft!

JML
03-08-2006, 02:09 PM
So 30,000,000 polys, over 100 lights. . . . That would take Camera what -- 2, maybe 2 1/2 minutes at HD res? :)


yeah and look flat.

EI can render huge scenes but only in Phong.
try to render that same scene with raytrace stuff in it, then we will see.
The other renderers you guys mentioned are mostly pure raytracer and can render much bigger raytrace scene than EI can.
they may not render big phong scenes as well as EI, but not a lot of people use phong anymore.

NorthernLights
03-08-2006, 02:30 PM
I'd venture to say that EI's raytracer (6.5 version, btw) is as fast if not faster than other ray-tracers out there. In addition, Camera is a mixed mode renderer which means that anything that's not using ray-traced reflections, transparencies, shadows, or ray-trace-specific shaders is going to run in Phong anyway.

halfworld
03-08-2006, 02:47 PM
I'd also like to add that in that image, everything is Raytraced with Global Illumination.

Ian

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 03:14 PM
Not to mention its a bit difficult to really evaluate what the rendering looks like based off a newpaper photo. Flat? Hmmm.. I doubt it. Camera's renderings always look pretty good to me. Of course I'm biased. :)

JML
03-08-2006, 05:44 PM
well , I did not mean his render looked flat, I meant in general.
I posted before seeing his image.
your image looks fine.

I just said that because when I was working in EI, we could do huge scenes,
but as soon as we would add reflection on buildings and other raytrace stuff, 2 millions
polys was too much and would crash camera.

I just don't think you can compare EI camera to high rated renderer such as metalray,vray,etc...

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 05:49 PM
I just don't think you can compare EI camera to high rated renderer such as metalray,vray,etc...


Quite the contrary. v6.5's renderer has taken a considerable jump from earlier versions of EIAS. A number of features have been added. Personally, I'd put Camera's output up against Mental Ray/Vray any day.

What version of EIAS were you using? Have you seen 6.5?

Igors
03-08-2006, 05:54 PM
yeah and look flat.

EI can render huge scenes but only in Phong.
try to render that same scene with raytrace stuff in it, then we will see.
The other renderers you guys mentioned are mostly pure raytracer and can render much bigger raytrace scene than EI can.
they may not render big phong scenes as well as EI, but not a lot of people use phong anymore.AFAIK ray-tracing provides only a set of features (like RT reflections, transparency, shadows etc.), but the general render pipeline is phong/scanline (in EI and other apps as well). So, looks like you still use phong :) Also there is no "more or less pure raytracer" - any RT feature requires a whole RT engine activation.

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 05:54 PM
I'd also like to add that in that image, everything is Raytraced with Global Illumination.

Ian



With 30,000,000 polys... hmmm.. so much for crashing on huge scenes. ;)

JML
03-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Personally, I'd put Camera's output up against Mental Ray/Vray any day.

are we talking about the same thing ? EI camera VS Vray ? look at regular Vray render and EI render.

we are using EI 6.5 sometimes when we have an old project to work on, the openGL is much nicer than older EI, I did not try to render heavy scene with 6.5 since we switch to another package.

I guess the reason we get poor EI performance is because we mainly use it on PC.
we have both mac and PC here and there are lots of bugs on PC ( with EI6.5)

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 08:27 PM
are we talking about the same thing ? EI camera VS Vray ? look at regular Vray render and EI render.

we are using EI 6.5 sometimes when we have an old project to work on, the openGL is much nicer than older EI, I did not try to render heavy scene with 6.5 since we switch to another package.

I guess the reason we get poor EI performance is because we mainly use it on PC.
we have both mac and PC here and there are lots of bugs on PC ( with EI6.5)


About a year or so ago.. Vray possessed several features that Camera didn't have. However v6 and v6.5 of EIAS added a number of missing rendering features that helped level the playing field quite considerably. I'm told a number of additional rendering optimizations are planned for v7....course we must only judge on the here and now.

I mainly work on the Mac with EIAS...but my limited experience of EI on the PC has been pretty positive. Maybe some PC users out there would care to share their experiences?

manuel
03-08-2006, 08:32 PM
well , I did not mean his render looked flat, I meant in general.
Isn't that mainly down to the skills of the person lighting and texturing the scene? A good sense of composition can also help make a scene look less flat. Of course, if you know of a renderer that manages to make a teapot with no textures and only a camera-light look like a $20.000 SFX shot, please let us know.

JML
03-08-2006, 08:58 PM
Isn't that mainly down to the skills of the person lighting and texturing the scene? A good sense of composition can also help make a scene look less flat. Of course, if you know of a renderer that manages to make a teapot with no textures and only a camera-light look like a $20.000 SFX shot, please let us know.

it's the combination of the artist skills and the tools he uses.

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 09:16 PM
Very true.. although I generally find that most artists only use 50% of a program's capability. (if that). Most programs are capable of so much more than most people realize.

JML
03-08-2006, 09:17 PM
I'm not saying EI camera is bad,
I'm saying it's not the best.

(and the 3d package we are using right now is not the best either.)
and yes, I beleive metalray,Vray, renderman are in general stronger than EI camera and
some other renderer.

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 09:55 PM
I'm not saying EI camera is bad,
I'm saying it's not the best.

(and the 3d package we are using right now is not the best either.)
and yes, I beleive metalray,Vray, renderman are in general stronger than EI camera and
some other renderer.


Oh no.. I never claimed you said it was bad.

Its a matter of symantecs. Are they better because they offer more tools? Maybe, maybe not. If the tools aren't used, then its just wasted money. Are they better cause they render faster? Doubtful. Camera can keep pace with just about anything. What it all comes down to is the finished product. If I can render something in Camera that is indistinguishable from Mental Ray, Vray or Renderman, in 1/10 the time and 1/10th the cost, then is Camera is a better renderer? If it costs more, is it better? What defines stronger? More tools? Popularity?

The only way you can make the claim that one renderer is better or stronger than another is by evaluating:

1. Performance for doing equivalent tasks.
2. Possessing specific tools required for your work not possessed in the other package.
3. Quality of resulting imagery.
4. Ease of use.
5. Cost.
6. Accessibility.

Some of those areas are quite subjective and easily influenced by what's currently "popular" at the time. The only area that Camera can't effectively compete in is Accessibilty/Open architecture and that is by EITG's choice.

manuel
03-08-2006, 10:15 PM
I was going to answer something in the vein of: "define stronger", but Brian already beat me to it.
If you were to say: "Mental Ray in XSI allows for much more precise control over procedurals, compared to EIAS, thanks to it's node-based interface", I could see your point, that would be a valid comment on the software. But saying: "EIAS renders everything flat" is more of a comment on the skills of the artist than the software.

Reuben5150
03-08-2006, 10:39 PM
If I can render something in Camera that is indistinguishable from Mental Ray, Vray or Renderman, in 1/10 the time and 1/10th the cost, then is Camera is a better renderer? If it costs more, is it better? What defines stronger? More tools? Popularity?


3d elitism ?

Hmm i'd sure like to test v-ray, MR and Brazil, unforunatly i'd have to run Max, Maya or XSi to access them, no thanks :banghead:

We like our "flat" EIAS, thanks :applause:

BTW, yes there are bugs in the windows version but 6.5 is not yet complete, also, you may find some features or some function present on the Mac version that won't work on windows, maybe regarded as "bug".


Reuben

Vizfizz
03-08-2006, 10:51 PM
Now now... JML has some good points. There's definitely things Camera can learn from other renderers. It was only recently we got blurred reflections. Something Vray does quite effectively.

Igors
03-08-2006, 11:15 PM
Some of those areas are quite subjective and easily influenced by what's currently "popular" at the time.

Maybe it's better yet to replace "quite subjective" with "absolute subjective". In those areas a logic of soccer's fan ("my team is the best!") is fully dominated

>> are we talking about the same thing ? EI camera VS Vray ? look at regular Vray render and EI render.<<

Sounds like any comparison is out of the question :)

threedeworks
03-09-2006, 09:06 AM
...i did this 2 years ago, with a 3 million poly count, all raytraced. of course, the rendertime was quite heavy (overnight on some renderama slaves for a 3400x3400 resolution render), because i used soft raytraced shadows and shadow casting glass... but the final output was brilliant and the client very happy! of course, there was a bit of photoshop work, too...
just for fun, i'm doing a re-render now on one camera 6.5 slave - and will let you know the render time later...

EDIT: well, i'm always shocked how fast G5 macs are compared to what hardware we had a few years ago... the rendertime on one 2.7ghz G5 slave: 2 hours!

cheers

markus

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8664/3dworkshhtenkh18006pi.jpg

FelixCat
03-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Very nice work, Markus. I would like to see the same rendering in VRay :scream:
I supposse this is the old ¨mine is larger than yours¨problem.
:bounce:

FelixCat

JML
03-09-2006, 04:03 PM
lots of beautiful renders at http://www.cgarchitect.com

iKKe
03-09-2006, 06:16 PM
Just before version 5.5 was released we were asked to create Coverart for it.
I had a lot of fun creating my first space scene, the keywords were Universe, Blue, and... the rest I can't remember.

Reading this thread I remembered the clusters in the Background used a lot of polygons, so just I checked it, and it were not as many as Ian used :-(

http://homepage.mac.com/groothuis/universe/statistics/Montage_2_logo.jpg


http://homepage.mac.com/groothuis/universe/statistics/statistics.gif

Thinking about this, what I would like to see in a new version of EIAS, is a modern instancing system!

Cheers

Hans

Vizfizz
03-09-2006, 06:18 PM
Fun! I like that. :)

threedeworks
03-09-2006, 06:44 PM
Just before version 5.5 was released we were asked to create Coverart for it.
I had a lot of fun creating my first space scene, the keywords were Universe, Blue, and... the rest I can't remember.

Reading this thread I remembered the clusters in the Background used a lot of polygons, so just I checked it, and it were not as many as Ian used :-(

....

Thinking about this, what I would like to see in a new version of EIAS, is a modern instancing system!

Cheers

Hans

very nice hans, love it!! ...but i suspect you used that super secret hidden button in ueber shape to generate those? LOL

yep - an incorporated instancing system which actually does not use geometry, but a sort of 'volumetric render copy' to generate instances would be absolutely great and useful for lot's of uses like grass, hair, forests etc.

halfworld
03-09-2006, 06:44 PM
Fun indeed! That is a great image!
Ian

Reuben5150
03-09-2006, 10:54 PM
I didn't mean to sound "off", but i just thought some of those comments were unfair and uninformed, ok, nuff said.

Markus and Hans, those are great images and created before EI had a GI implementation, it would be great to see, not so much a speed comparison but a re-render with GI lighting, i'm currently revisiting some of my old scenes, its great to see the difference "real" GI makes :)

Reuben

SteveW928
03-11-2006, 07:18 AM
they may not render big phong scenes as well as EI, but not a lot of people use phong anymore.

I'm not so sure about that. Most 'Pros' I have ever talked to only use the more advanced features of rendering engines when it is absolutely necessary. They are very good at cheating on the rest of the scene to maximize the render speed.

Being only phong for many years in some ways has made EI users stronger in this aspect. The falling knife in Mission Impossible comes to mind... phong.

I guess now that computers are becoming faster and cheaper, this starts to become less of an issue. But anyone who does animation knows that if you can shave a few seconds per frame off thousands of frames, it adds up.

-Steve

NorthernLights
03-11-2006, 03:59 PM
I take exception to the adjective "Flat". Ever since I started working in 3D, I've noticed that most renderers have a distinctive (and imho, unrealistic) look to them. For example, everything that comes out of Lightwave looks plastic. I was always able to look at something and tell what renderer did it. But not Camera. Camera always had a natural look to it. I can even tell in side-by-side stuff. Case in point: Star Wars. In Phantom Menace, I can totally tell which elements were Renderman and which were EI. For my money, the Renderman stuff doesn't look quite natural. Not bad, mind you, but not quite real.

SteveW928
03-11-2006, 09:15 PM
I agree Blair. Though I think I would modify what you said just a bit, in that most renderers have kind of a 'look' that most users (who haven't learned the 'deep dark secrets') get when they render.

For example, I agree that Lightwave stuff looks more plastic like. C4D renders look kind of overly sharp, but in a odd sort of way. I kind of call it 'harsh'. 3DS Max, until it got 3rd party render engines, looked kind of 'cartoony', or just unrealistic.

That said, I would also see stuff done in any of those apps that just blew me away at times. So, a good user can seem to work around these things in any of these apps.

What has always impressed me about EIAS, is that even users without this depth of knowledge can get a nice looking image out of Camera. EI's defaults seemed to be very well tuned for most projects or something. This makes a higher percentage of work coming out of EI look more realistic from the start.

But I totally agree... calling EI renders 'flat' is just a silly cheap shot type content, unless it was just a poor choice of terms and I'm just not understanding. Maybe 'soft'? Default EI renders can sometimes look a bit 'soft' compared to renders out of other 3D engines, but I always thought that was a positive thing (great AA) that made them look more realistic. ;)

-Steve

harryb
03-13-2006, 04:34 PM
I think one of the keys to the beautiful renders in EI animations is the default oversampled antialiasing. But when you average the antialiasing for print (Adaptive min 255, max 255), Camera looks quite a bit like C4D's rendering. Not that that's a bad thing -- and for print it really helps to bring out the details.

I agree that it's easier to create fantastic images right from the start from EI. Textures don't swim, frames don't jitter and when I load the scene with 8,000,000 polygons it's like Camera just laughs and says, "What, that's it? This is a cakewalk."

I'm learning Maya now. And while there are some great features, setting render globals is still trickier than it needs to be. The render globals in Maya are pretty much the same as Power Animator had twelve years ago.

The one feature I wish Camera had is exporting render passes for animations to Shake and After Effects. Kind of like Fast Pass but for animation. (So, if any programers are listening . . . .)

MagicEgger
03-15-2006, 06:23 PM
Hi Guys,

A simple test which I did against one of my friends in Brazil which owns Vetor Zero (the biggest FX house in Brazil) and a Turtle lover. (Maya) and one of the Turtle beta users.. his work is in the Turtle’s gallery.
www.vetorzero.com.br
The fastest render with turtle using GI without loosing quality (7 minutes) against EIAS (2 minutes).
The worst quality in Turtle (1m 34s) against EIAS (1m 12secs).. and our worst EIAS render is really better than Turtle.
Hmmm I love Camera.

:))

Tomas Egger

MagicEgger
03-15-2006, 07:25 PM
Hey,

I know,

These images are old.. but I dont think its too flat.

http://www.cgchannel.com/gallery/viewprofil.jsp?artID=1869

Thanksssss

Tomas Egger

:))

harryb
03-16-2006, 07:14 PM
Hi Guys,

A simple test which I did against one of my friends in Brazil which owns Vetor Zero (the biggest FX house in Brazil) and a Turtle lover. (Maya) and one of the Turtle beta users.. his work is in the Turtle’s gallery.
www.vetorzero.com.br
The fastest render with turtle using GI without loosing quality (7 minutes) against EIAS (2 minutes).
The worst quality in Turtle (1m 34s) against EIAS (1m 12secs).. and our worst EIAS render is really better than Turtle.
Hmmm I love Camera.

:))

Tomas Egger

Hi Tomas,

The first EI render has a lot of aliasing in it compared with Turtle's render, which looks fine to me. I think it would serve as a better comparison to match the antialiasing quality in Camera to the antialiasing quality in Turtle. Then do another speed test.

It's still pretty impressive!

MagicEgger
03-16-2006, 07:21 PM
Hey Harry,

I sent to my friend and told him which antialiases I used, I asked him to match my antialiases and he did the render, he told me about EIAS antialiases is realllly good and sharpen.

7 min (turtle) against 2 min (EIAS).. make me smille always

:))

Tomas Egger

harryb
03-16-2006, 08:10 PM
Hi Tomas,

Maybe it was just the view that was throwing me off. That's quite a bit of difference in render speed! :eek:

manuel
03-16-2006, 09:41 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Harry B here, the EIAS render does look a bit off, specially at the top of the back window.
I'm not even sure if that's the anti-aliasing settings. 4x4 should be enough for a non-textured image. Maybe EIAS isn't too happy with the quality of the mesh or maybe 200 rays is a bit on the low side, after all, who says 200 rays in Turtle are the same as 200 rays in EIAS? They're different algorithms...

stooch
03-24-2006, 09:16 PM
I take exception to the adjective "Flat". Ever since I started working in 3D, I've noticed that most renderers have a distinctive (and imho, unrealistic) look to them. For example, everything that comes out of Lightwave looks plastic. I was always able to look at something and tell what renderer did it. But not Camera. Camera always had a natural look to it. I can even tell in side-by-side stuff. Case in point: Star Wars. In Phantom Menace, I can totally tell which elements were Renderman and which were EI. For my money, the Renderman stuff doesn't look quite natural. Not bad, mind you, but not quite real.

the plastic look is caused by inexperienced users who use the specular settings instead of fresnel gradients. so its not the program renderer, its the user who is making the error. including those that assume the renderer is inferior in comparison to others :)

Vizfizz
03-24-2006, 09:31 PM
I'd have to say that nearly every renderer has a particular look to it. However, the differences between renderers are getting less and less with every iteration of their host program. That being said though, I would still have to say that certain renderers excel over others when conducting specific tasks. Renderman, imo, does have a particular look to it. As does LW, EIAS, and Maya. Some like it, others do not.

stooch
03-24-2006, 11:18 PM
hmmm. if you say so. :)

Vizfizz
03-24-2006, 11:32 PM
I've been working in this industry for years. Worked at several different vfx houses. Trust me, renderers have a specific look. There's plenty you can do to help compensate for the different weaknesses of a renderer, but ultimately, you'll have to deal with them in one way or another. Typical points of contention are:

Anti Aliasing
Motion Blur
Metals
Occlusion
Volumetrics

and so on.

When I was at Digital Domain working on Stealth, we evaluated a number of renderers against renderman for the surface of the aircraft. We went with Renderman, not because it looked better, but because it was well established in DD's pipeline. We actually found more realistic looks for what we needed with Vray, but at the time Vray was only attached to Max and the cost involved to switch just was too much. It was not only faster, but the metals looked considerably more convincing.

Reuben5150
03-25-2006, 12:15 AM
Hey Brian you worked on Steath ?, i enjoyed that movie very much :), didn't get great reviews but i dig the cool FX :thumbsup:


Reuben

Vizfizz
03-25-2006, 12:22 AM
Yah...fun movie to work on... although the writing was not very good. Previs supervisor. You can see some of the previs on my website in the demo reel section.

stooch
03-27-2006, 05:04 PM
its a rental ;)

gotta love russian planes though.

also, when you tested all those renderers for stealth, I presume you had experts who were intimatelly familiar with the workings of all renderers in question? im curious as to what kind of testing you did to determine which one looked the best. Doesnt really prove your point one way or another regardless of the number of years you have had in the field. 5 years of experience rendering with renderman doesnt mean you can jump on something like vray and crank out perfection overnight. I wont argue the fact that some renderers have strength and weaknesses, what im saying is, your render shouldnt be a product of the software but the product of your vision. The software just has to be coaxed to produce what you want. Or beaten severely :)

Vizfizz
03-27-2006, 05:30 PM
We had a dedicated lighting and rendering team working round the clock on finding the best solution. Ultimately the team broke up into two parts. A renderman team and a vray team. Both teams included personnel who were familiar with their respective softwares and were seasoned rendering professionals.

We evaluated a number of factors when making the decision. Render quality, anti alias quality, 3D motion blur, speed, cost factors, ease of use, parameter controls, occlusion capabilities, reflection blurring, lighting controls...you name it, it was scrutinized. The general consensus was Vray fit our needs better with greater speed and lighting controls over Renderman. However, DD concluded that a migration to Max and Vray was too cost prohibited given the schedule we were under.

Generally I agree with your statement: "Your render shouldnt be a product of the software but the product of your vision." Creatively you are correct...but in real world situations, this isn't always true. Definitive factors and differences between renderers can result in the need to select one renderer over another that doesn't have a thing to do with your vision. If we stepped back a decade it would be considerably easier to detect the differences between renderers...today, its much more difficult...but that doesn't mean that all of the approaches to rendering are the same. Results vary...and specific requirements must be addressed. Besides, if this was true.. we'd all use the internal Maya renderer..
ugh.. who wants that?

stooch
03-27-2006, 09:34 PM
lol @ maya renderer, although i have to admit, i have had my share of fun with it.

CGTalk Moderation
03-27-2006, 09:34 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.