PDA

View Full Version : Wow! The difference in the 10.5 Renderer!


PJC
02-15-2003, 07:31 AM
Sorry guys, I posted the wrong picture! Here's THE EXACT SAME PRJ AND CHOR in both programs Pictures updated below.

Sorry for the confusion. Same lights same EVERYTHING!



I am amazed at the difference already! The only thing that I had to change was the material of the robot since 10.5 doesn't recognize AM_Fresnel and Simbiont. I added some hills in the back, but other than that, it's the same setup.

v10.5 [Multipass @9, no AA] 47 minutes

v10e [AA on] 1 hour 6 minutes minutes

v10.5 (47 minutes)

http://www.ccpots.com/PJCdemo/AMTESTS/clonktesv10_5.jpg


and v10e (1 hour 6 minutes)
http://www.ccpots.com/PJCdemo/AMTESTS/clonktesv10.jpg

All I can say is I like what's going on!

- pjc

ChrisOG
02-15-2003, 12:15 PM
Did you really make no changes to the grass? If that's the case, I'm amazed. I guess they really are working hard on the render engine!

John Keates
02-15-2003, 12:39 PM
Well, I prefer the old render. The AA on the eyes and the highlight round the head looks better in the old one.

The grass does indeed look very different. The AA on the grass in the 10.5 render looks bad. I can see problems uccuring in animation there.
The texture on the ground also looks different. It is blury and washed out in v10.5.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of render times.

Maybe we shouldn't judge something that isn't finished yet though.

bugzilla
02-15-2003, 04:51 PM
So far my scenes have come out all washed out in the 10.5 renderer. I hope I don't have to redo the lighting for all my scenes or I am going to have to stay with v10.0

walasek
02-15-2003, 05:24 PM
Well, I like the 10.5 render, but I am just a novice. I *can* see in the 10.0 render where the AA around the eyes, especially, is better, but the 10.5 render didn't have AA on (just multipass). I *really* like the grass a lot better and the lighting in 10.5. I like the moon and AA effects in 10.0 better.

I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve with the image. Each image makes me *feel* a little different about each picture (as far as how it affects me).

At least in 10.5 you seem to have more options...

kikiriki
02-15-2003, 07:35 PM
Where we can download beta of v10.5 ?

John Keates
02-15-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by kikiriki
Where we can download beta of v10.5 ?

Try here...

ftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/updates/

You will have search a little further yourself though.

Natess44
02-15-2003, 09:13 PM
It looks like he changed the scene a little bit and added some more light and a better back ground. The renderer is much better.

PJC
02-16-2003, 12:14 AM
Sorry guys! I goofed up last night and put up an old picture from v10, not the most recent. So, I rendered the SAME EXACT PRJ file in v10e and 10.5alpha. The results are above.

Sorry again for any confusion...

- pjc

koon69
02-16-2003, 02:30 AM
How are you finding the overall quality and speed? Do you think it has gotten to the Lightwave like point yet?

walasek
02-16-2003, 03:45 AM
What is going on with the textures? Look at the right hand (the robots right) - at the fingers. Is this a different texture between 10.5 and 10.0? Just curious...

My son wants to see this jumping guy.... :bounce:

PJC
02-16-2003, 06:20 AM
No, the same texture, but it IS a reflective surface, and I suppose since v10.5 samples the lights 9 times (is that right) it's affecting the intensity of the reflections. It's definately brighter, tho.


You know what I really like about v10.5? I can really calculate how long a render will take, and dial in how much anti-aliasing depending on the render time. I love that on a 9 pass, after the first pass I can definately know when the render will finish. No more 1st and 2nd AA passes taking FOREVER!

My perfect renderer would have what 10.5 has, but also a more extensive AA feature so we could play to our hearts content.

Okay, okay, I REALLY wish AM had Cinema 4D's renderer. Lightwave is good, but Cinema kicks butt!

In my tests it's actually quicker to use 10.5 to achieve a better AA. Now if I up my Mult-pass to make AWESOME AA, it would probably be slower, but that ain't too bad.



- pjc

John Keates
02-16-2003, 11:30 AM
I would be interested to know what processor you are using. The render times given are not realy fit for animation. Is there any information about the possibility of the renderer speeding up at some point?

Kevin Sanderson
02-16-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by John Keates
I would be interested to know what processor you are using. The render times given are not realy fit for animation. Is there any information about the possibility of the renderer speeding up at some point?

Steve said it would be slow. In reality, this is faster than what it has been from Patrick's times and the quality is up. I could be wrong but I believe this is still going to be just a NetRender feature as you would need more than one machine to reduce your overall times, not the time to render each frame but the overall time to complete the total movie.

John Keates
02-16-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Kevin Sanderson
Steve said it would be slow. In reality, this is faster than what it has been from Patrick's times and the quality is up. I could be wrong but I believe this is still going to be just a NetRender feature as you would need more than one machine to reduce your overall times, not the time to render each frame but the overall time to complete the total movie.

So all this hullabaloo about a new renderer is irrelevant for "normal" 10.5 users? I am confused! I have been looking forward to a decent renderer appearing. Please say that it will.... Please.:hmm:

Nonproductive
02-16-2003, 06:10 PM
All users will be getting the new Multipass render engine in 10.5. At least, that's what I got from my conversation with Steve. I think Kevin's point is that because of the excessive render times (which are still slightly faster then 10.0) it would be relegated to network users for animation.

Rendering 300 frames (roughly 10 seconds of animation) at 45 mins a frame for a single machine will mean your movie would complete in 225 hours of rendering. Not very realistic for day to day use...

Kevin Sanderson
02-16-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Nonproductive
All users will be getting the new Multipass render engine in 10.5. At least, that's what I got from my conversation with Steve. I think Kevin's point is that because of the excessive render times (which are still slightly faster then 10.0) it would be relegated to network users for animation.

Rendering 300 frames (roughly 10 seconds of animation) at 45 mins a frame for a single machine will mean your movie would complete in 225 hours of rendering. Not very realistic for day to day use...

OK.

If you have the basic 3 machine NetRender license, that could be cut by a third (if everything runs as it should). You can go hog wild with the unlimited license for more. Last time I heard (a couple years ago) the 3 machine license was $150, unlimited was $500. Check with Steve for the latest pricing. Upgrading each year has been $99.

You can pretty economically get a render farm up and running these days. You can even use your older machines and friends and family members' PCs...just be sure to split them up among your electric circuits so you don't blow a circuit breaker! :)

You can also use the services of RenderMuscle. They offer render farm service to A:M users, though I don't know if they're upgrading yet. They have 25 nodes and each rendering node is an AMD 21+ with 1 gig of RAM. Contact Mike Ulrich at mulrich@ltlink.com for more info. Someone on the list used them recently and gave them a good recommendation. Their website is pretty new and spare so contact Mike.

Reducing render times is something you can plan out a bit. Using pre-rendered backgrounds, hiding what is not visible to a camera in a scene, use maps for reflections, run tests to decide if textures will work as well as procedurals or vice versa, using smaller models for distant shots, efficient lighting, etc. Plan and plan some more.

Also, before you commit yourself to buying more machines or going the RenderMuscle route, you can by yourself render out your frames at a small final resolution like 320x240 or smaller to get a feel for how your animation will look when it's finished. It doesn't take long to final render a small frame. You can render specific frames at a larger resolution to see how they will look and then you'll feel better about sending your whole masterpiece off to be completely rendered or making the investment in more machines of your own. It might also help you get financial help from friends or family if they're impressed. Remember, too, that you can get a good idea of how your animation is working early on by rendering out wireframes. That is very fast.

PJC
02-17-2003, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by John Keates
I would be interested to know what processor you are using. The render times given are not realy fit for animation. Is there any information about the possibility of the renderer speeding up at some point?


I am using a 500 MhZ PIII Mobile CPU. Definately not the fastest thing in the world.

Render size was 320 X 560 on the renders.

I just finished a 960 X 1680 render and it took a little over 8 hours to render, but looks great (10.5 @ 9X Multipass).

Like I said, I would love to have what everyone wants, the best quality with the quickest render time...let's get quality first in my opinion.

- pjc

Kevin Sanderson
02-17-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by PJC
I am using a 500 MhZ PIII Mobile CPU. Definately not the fastest thing in the world.

<snip>
Like I said, I would love to have what everyone wants, the best quality with the quickest render time...let's get quality first in my opinion.

- pjc

I agree. Better quality first. I'm impressed by what's been done with the renderer!

John Keates
02-17-2003, 03:54 PM
How much does this render muscle thing cost to hire? If it is costly then I would rather have a faster renderer. It is quite possible for Hash to make the renderer two to three times as fast. This would be like getting 1000 worth of processor for free!:thumbsup:

If you have "good quality" stuff happening (eg fur, soft reflections, Gi, sub-serface scattering) then this represents a lot of programmer time for stuff that won't be used for animation unless you are ILM. I bought AM for animation and so expect it to have a fast and stripped down renderer (even PR Renderman only introduced raytracing last year).

OK, there are little tweeks here and there which are needed (better AA, no bugs etc.) but what else do people mean when they ask for quality?

Natess44
02-17-2003, 04:02 PM
The guy that told us about render man said that the prices would be resonable and I think that they had a free trial offer that was 300 frames for free or something like that at 320x240 res.

Nonproductive
02-17-2003, 05:11 PM
My conversation with Steve he stated (and this is almost an exact quote) - "we are going for highest quality but possibly slow" with regard to the render engine.

For my part - I am ok with slow *IF* the quality is there. Considering that with Lightwave or C4D I can turn out a pretty nice looking frame in a matter of seconds - but if I want to throw in GI, caustics, sas lite, super high AA, ray traced reflections, etc. I am going to pay for it in incerased render times. This is "ok" in my book. If I want Still image quality I turn things up and wait for a frame...if I want quick frames I turn stuff off.

If Hash's render engine goes the same route I am ok with it. If I can render out a decent frame in under a minute or two and have the option to turn up the "quality" for stills and comparably longer render times - then that's a job well done by Hash.

However, if I can't render a reasonable animation frame without crawling textures and horendous AA in a reasonable amount of time...well...then the render engine becomes useless in the context of animation.

All we can really do is wait and see the results when the new render engine goes "beta." We all know it's possible to get "good" quality and fast frames - Electric Image does it, C4D does it, Lightwave and many, many others. It's really a matter of whether Martin is adding in a "band-aid" with multi pass or really re-evaluating the render code for optimizations and such.

jayrtfm
02-17-2003, 05:19 PM
umnnn, am I the only one in Hashland intrested in trying Netrender over the internet?
I've got a few machines, and cable broadband, which I'd be happy to let people use to render when I don't need to use them.
Since I don't have netrender, my cpus would be clients.

Here's another way that Hash could pretty easily add a major feature to ver11.
graft gnutella onto netrender

This would make it simple to make really really big renderfarms.
For example, Gateway is selling the unused cpu power of the 8,000 computers in their stores, so even at 6 hours/frame, over 4 minutes could be rendered overnight.

John Keates
02-17-2003, 07:46 PM
What's Gnutella?

jayrtfm
02-17-2003, 08:11 PM
umnnn, it's the first thing that shows up when you do a google search for "gnutella" <g>

- one of many open source peer to peer tcp/ip based file shareing programs

http://www.gnutella.com/news/4210

Kevin Sanderson
02-17-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by John Keates
How much does this render muscle thing cost to hire


I've heard it's quite reasonable, but I don't have numbers. To get a solid answer I've emailed Mike that we're talking about it here so hopefully he'll respond in a timely manner. They are trying to build a client base.

Back in November they were offering a free deal to help test out their stuff...500 frames at a maximum resolution of HDTV-720. They were using v8.5. I think they were upgrading at the time.



OK, there are little tweeks here and there which are needed (better AA, no bugs etc.) but what else do people mean when they ask for quality?

The way light is reflected off surfaces, shadows cast, accurate colors, accurate handling of texture maps, motionblur, etc.

PJC
02-18-2003, 06:22 AM
Here's the final product (4X5" @ 300 dpi). I rendered out in FINAL and in TOON and composited it in Photoshop and then hand inked some more on the TOON render.

8 hours rendertime in 10.5, and 4 minutes for the TOON in v10. 2 hours of Photoshop.

Overall, pretty smooth!

http://www.ccpots.com/PJCdemo/AMTESTS/Clonk_NightStareINKEDSM.jpg


- pjc

no0ne
02-18-2003, 07:44 AM
:thumbsup: love it

how about putin the pic in the gallery/finished work?

this comic-style rocks :buttrock:

Kevin Sanderson
02-18-2003, 07:14 PM
Mike replied to my inquiry about RenderMuscle...with his permission



----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ulrich
To: Kevin Sanderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: RenderMuscle question on CgTalk


Hey Kevin,

Thanks for remembering our service.

As far as a pricing structure goes, we are trying to be very affordable for AM users. This being said, we have a minimum rate that covers the administrative costs and a generous chunk of rendering. We feel that this will allow many AM users to use us in the testing phases of their productions as well as for final rendering.

Currently we have a 50 dollar minimum fee that includes prep, rendering, and shipping (either via internet and/or CD) for jobs up to a certain number of processing hours (most jobs will fit within this category). If a rendering job exceeds the maximum processing hours included in the default rate, there is an additional rate per processing hour charged. This additional charge varies depending on need and use. We can also work with people to determine a "flat rate" for a large job and help keep things within a tight budget.

We understand that to make this work in the AM community we will need to have a flexible price for large renders. Because of this I would really like to work with AM users on an individual basis. Studios and such can effectively include rendering costs in their budgeting proposals and include rendering in their bids. I would like to be able to charge a little more for commercial developments like this than for hobbiests and indie developers who are digging deep for their creative quests :-)

We support AM versions 8.5, 9.5 and 10.5.

Anyway, that is pretty much the plan as it now stands. Feel free to post any of this information on CGTALK that you think beneficial. If anyone is interested in trying us out, feel free to contact me:

mike@rendermuscle.com

Our site is pretty minimal right now, but feel free to sign up for a username and password that will allow you to upload and download your projects:

www.rendermuscle.com (http://www.rendermuscle.com)


Thanks Kevin ,

Mike Ulrich
www.rendermuscle.com (http://www.rendermuscle.com)

CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 11:00 AM
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.