PDA

View Full Version : Modo render compared to c4d vs11


Martin Kay
03-27-2009, 08:39 PM
Post deleted

PaulS2
03-27-2009, 11:54 PM
Good job on both Martin!

I think the refractive Env map in the C4D rendering is a bit heavy...this is something which can be controlled independantly in Brazil. I don't believe it's possible in either Modo or C4D. But, there are always work-arounds for each.

Martin Kay
03-28-2009, 12:09 PM
Post deleted

futagoza
03-28-2009, 12:37 PM
Nice comparison renders, Martin.

However your fantastic Kitchenette renders made my decission now final to buy Modo in a couple of weeks and use it as my main app in the future! BTW. Does someone here knows if Modo 401 will be also UB under OSX or will it be Intel only?

Regards
Stefan

Martin Kay
03-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Post deleted

Magnus3D
03-28-2009, 01:10 PM
401 should be released on both platforms at the same time, it would be illogical and stupid to only release it for Windows. Users would go on a rampage and Luxology would go out of business if they tried to pull something like that off. It's not their style. So it's pretty safe to assume they will release 401 on both Windows and OSX at the same time. :)

/ Magnus

pd
03-28-2009, 02:59 PM
I occasionally cheat and use Rhino for mechanical type objects.

That's no cheating, Nurbs are the superior approach to hard surface work. Rhino rocks.

futagoza
03-28-2009, 03:08 PM
Hi Martin and Magnus,

sorry that i had not formulated my question properly. What i meaned was if the OSX vers. of Modo 401 will be only Intel based OSX or like now in 302 also Universal Binary OSX. I ask this because i´m still on OSX 10.4.11 and an PPC iMac and would have to wait then if it would be only say for Leopard OSX on an Intel Mac and Windows platforms. Because i don´t have a Windows PC yet and don´t plan to buy a new IntelMac.

Yes, i have already demoed Modo a while ago and i was very impressed. Especially the render speed was fantastic on my little iMac.

Regards
Stefan

PaulS2
03-28-2009, 06:12 PM
Thanks Paul. I'm almost tempted to upgrade to c4d 11, but it's quite frustrating sometimes trying to get an effect like the object on the left in this EI render...

http://www.martinkay-3d.com/EI_pages/mforge_1.html

I fiddled for ages, and you'd think it was simple to do... Modo has the better render but a poor & flakey texturing system.
Area lights in EI could make the application far more useable for so many things- hope they are fast...

Oh yes, I still have the Brazil Vs2 Demo- don't know when it'll refuse to work. I've made a few test renders with the skylight- it really has a top quality look to it, but again Modo will churn out something acceptable much quicker.

Martin K

I was working on a project in EI all day yesterday and it was looking good...but still not what I was after so took the geometry into Rhino to use Brazil ( I had to rebuild it as Rhino was not liking my IGES export from EIM:-(. I couldn't believe how much faster and better I could work there. Took me half the time to get the exact look I wanted. The only thing I miss in Brazil are EI's great shaders .....they continue to be the best I have ever used.

I've been looking at the new features for Modo 401 and I'm certain I will get the upgrade. It has some very nice things added in the rendering department and it talks to Rhino so well. If C4D wasn't such an expensive upgrade I would add that too. I'm surprised they haven't rolled the Advanced Render into the base package. Their basic render is behind every one now.

TimeBandit
03-29-2009, 01:17 AM
I have been a C4d user for several years. I definitely think the MODO render you shared id much better than the C4D render...

Martin Kay
03-29-2009, 07:37 AM
Post deleted

Martin Kay
03-29-2009, 07:41 AM
Post deleted

Other3DMaster
04-02-2009, 03:54 PM
401 should be released on both platforms at the same time, it would be illogical and stupid to only release it for Windows. Users would go on a rampage and Luxology would go out of business if they tried to pull something like that off. It's not their style. So it's pretty safe to assume they will release 401 on both Windows and OSX at the same time. :)

/ Magnus


As was clarified, he was talking about UB(intel and ppc) vs. just intel. Of course modo is still going to be os x... haven't you noticed that all the 401 demo movies brad has been showing on the luxology site are in os x? :-)

desc4d
04-14-2009, 05:02 AM
So Martin, the topic caught my attention for a couple of things. I'm a C4D user as well and I see a couple of topics around related to Cinema, I'm also very interested in Modo for some reasons, first I think that Luxology is doing a great work promoting their product, is nice to see so many tutorials from there about topics like archviz (which is mainly what I do), they are very open about development and people seem to be very close in forums. Then the renderer... well I tried some things already and still don't get along with the renderer but I'm sure is just a matter of practicing, however I looooove the final product from it. Even after the upgrade AR3 lacks many things, first in lighting and most important in their material setup. Vray does a much better job but I still don't have the money for 1.1, but I'm trying to compare modo renderer with AR3 and vrayforc4d, first about speed, then quality, how easy they are to handle, potential, material system and that is pretty much it. I guess is not a coincidence to see so many people from cinema here so I guess your input will be useful for many people.
For example somewhere I saw blurry reflections are faster in Cinema, in other places they say is faster in Modo so according to your experience what would you say? Thanks and keep the good work.

Martin Kay
04-15-2009, 01:10 AM
Post deleted

soccerrprp
07-04-2009, 12:36 PM
i'm confused here. the two images are not equivalent, right? one has GI and the c4d version does not. anyway, speed seems to be the valuable difference here, but please show the c4d version WITH GI!

Martin Kay
07-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Post deleted

Martin Kay
07-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Post deleted

soccerrprp
07-04-2009, 01:48 PM
hmmm. always was under the impression that GI made a difference...

PaulS2
07-04-2009, 03:20 PM
With glass, in an 'absolute' sense it does, but in practical application it usually just adds considerable time to a render.

There is no such thing as 100% transparency in realism so theoretically glass should be effected by GI and also the floor it sits on. But in the 3D world, using most renders, there is little to be gained having the glass respond to GI...so include/exclude lists are useful. The floor would look different though having GI active....the shadowing from the glass would be effected.

3D is always a toss and a compromise

Martin Kay
07-05-2009, 12:14 PM
Post deleted

PaulS2
07-05-2009, 04:31 PM
You did a good job squeezing what you could out of AR3, Martin.

I have no fault in your artistic presentation or concept....well executed! I do find fault with the render engine. The whites, especially in the knobs, are very C4D looking....very abrupt, compressed tonality. This is a case where if something like Fry or Maxwell was used...you might not see huge differences at first (the first hour or so) but if the render engine was run for awhile, the amount of subtle shading and beautiful detail would just make the C4D image so dead and flat looking ...you would never want to use it again:-)

Just for the record. I am in no way criticizing your use of C4D. It has it's strengths and also limitation. You've done a good job with it here.

Martin Kay
07-05-2009, 09:48 PM
Post deleted

PaulS2
07-06-2009, 12:22 AM
Thanks for your comments Paul. Are you using Maxwell now as well...? Is Fry a practical proposition without a render farm- well I suppose it's not too difficult to set a simple render farm up these days what with the price of computers.
I'd never really considered tonal compression with 3d- it's something you're pretty much stuck with using most digital cameras- but looking at the various renders I see what you mean.
Any recent work to show? Your web site/sites haven't changed much recently. I've seen the Fry site, but as I mentioned you've very long render times.

Martin K

I used Maxwell when I was looking at a comparison between it and Fry for Rhino. I prefered using Fry.

Fry can be slow but it's not that bad for some work....yes, a render farm is in my future.

New work...I've been very busy but nothing to really show. I've been fiddling with my Mac for the last week. EI V8 was supposed to run on OSX 10.4.2 but it doesn't....and upgrading my mac to 10.4.11 makes my whole sytem unstable even with a complete clean install and thorough hardware check. I can't go to 10.5 as there is software which doesn't run under 10.5.

This really will be my last mac I buy...and if I can't get on with EI on the PC probably the last upgrade of EI I get too. My earlier versions are all I need anyway...anything which requires a more current technology will be rendered elsewhere. Brazil, Modo and Fry cover a lot of what I need. I used EI for a very simple, good looking animation output solution. I feel comfortable using it for that.....phong rendering with a little raytracing is EI's forte.

PaulS2
07-06-2009, 12:26 AM
...just to add. The biggest beef I have with C4D's render is the amount of tonal and detail compression it insists on. I think this is Maxon's solution to get a fast raytraced render (just a guess). It's greyscale range is very, very compressed, to my eyes, as is it's raytraced recursion detail. I find Modo's is a little bit in that regard too but not anywhere as bad.

The thing which I love about Fry is how broad the tonal range and detail range actually is....Brazil possess this to a large degree too.

Martin Kay
07-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Post deleted

Martin Kay
07-06-2009, 06:05 PM
Post deleted

Per-Anders
07-06-2009, 07:56 PM
...just to add. The biggest beef I have with C4D's render is the amount of tonal and detail compression it insists on. I think this is Maxon's solution to get a fast raytraced render (just a guess). It's greyscale range is very, very compressed, to my eyes, as is it's raytraced recursion detail. I find Modo's is a little bit in that regard too but not anywhere as bad.

The thing which I love about Fry is how broad the tonal range and detail range actually is....Brazil possess this to a large degree too.

What tonal compression exactly? How have you got your monitor set up, and do you apply gamma correction afterwards (you are aware that Modo by default applies screen gamma to rendered images right? while C4D by default leaves you with the linear image, and what that means in terms of visual range), both engines render in floating point precision and have more gamut and precision than any monitor or graphics card can display (you cannot speed things up by dropping a few colors :argh: ).

By the way Martin, you should at least render your comparative scenes with similar lighting, texture and environmental setup if you want to compare the engines. I'd also recommend looking at the "bad renders" thread I posted in the C4D area if you want to get sharp AA, Cone isn't the best option at all, use Sinc and possibly add a 10% sharpening via the sharpening post effect if you want to make it even crispier. I'd also recommend playing around with light color (as white is not only boring but also unnatural and makes for a very amateur looking render) and avoiding over-use of fill lights or ambient lighting, you're washing out your images this way. Also you need to learn how to use the material system a bit more in both applications rather than depending on presets, as these are only ever as good as the scene the original preset maker used them in. It's important to actually know how to use the render engines first before you can compare them fully. :shrug:

PaulS2
07-06-2009, 08:14 PM
No C4D user should feel threatened by Martin's and my friendly and completely subjective opinions in regard renders and what we like to use. I think C4D has enough users and enough good images produced to not feel inferior or have the need to 'defend' itself by it's users.

Martin and I have had our discussions about 3D tools for many, many years....we openly praise what we like and just as openly complain about faults in what we use and see.

Sorry if our discussion has made you feel like you need to defend your software of choice. Have fun...use it to produce wonderful images. Martin and I will continue to sit in our corner here and talk freely about what we like and don't like in the world of 3D.

Per-Anders
07-06-2009, 08:43 PM
No C4D user should feel threatened by Martin's and my friendly and completely subjective opinions in regard renders and what we like to use. I think C4D has enough users and enough good images produced to not feel inferior or have the need to 'defend' itself by it's users.

Martin and I have had our discussions about 3D tools for many, many years....we openly praise what we like and just as openly complain about faults in what we use and see.

Sorry if our discussion has made you feel like you need to defend your software of choice. Have fun...use it to produce wonderful images. Martin and I will continue to sit in our corner here and talk freely about what we like and don't like in the world of 3D.

Um, I think you're reading something that isn't there into what I posted, projecting any?

I'm just asking some question to qualify what you're stating, so that maybe you can either inform or be informed, and also making some suggestions that could help improve Martins renders and the value of the thread itself, there's no point comparing apples and oranges after all.

Martin Kay
07-06-2009, 09:32 PM
Post deleted

Per-Anders
07-06-2009, 10:05 PM
With respect,

I'm not comparing renders per sec- just seeing how c4d AR3 performs. I realise that to make render comparisons of any value is very difficult, although I personally find them of value...

I don't want 'sharp' renders, or at least not as sharp as 'sinc' mode- in my opinion they are oversharp and give images a 'brittle' look and I wouldn't want to then apply sharpening- at least not overall.

Who says 'white' light is boring? As a studio photographer of very many years I can tell you that the vast majority of studio photography is done using 'white' light or as close as can be got in order to preserve accuracy in product colour- actually gels are used over the lens to get the required colour balance. I know you don't get white light in an outside environment, but studio conditions are different.

I think you are perhaps confusing 'fill' lights with the so called 'ambient' light you often get in 3d packages. The 'fill' I used on this occasion was a 'white card' to bounce light back into the scene in order to fill the shadows out a bit.

Presets? What presets? I don't think I've ever used a 'preset' in my life from c4d unless you are refering to those found in Electric Image.

I'm not knocking c4d, I've used it since XL5, but now there are other kids on the block.
I don't especially personally like most of the renders I see from c4d- they seem too sharp, as I said previously, hence my experimentation. I attribute this to the advice given to use 'sinc' aliasing. Everything looks as if it was shot on a 10 x8 view camera stopped right down with the back tilted to extend the field of sharp focus- it just doesn't look natural, especially as these days most are using digital cameras that vaguely approximate the old 35mm film camera.

I'm not posting in the c4d forum, but I know a lot of c4ders use Modo as well, now.

Martin K

If you want to make comparisons then you need to actually compare like for like. Otherwise the exercise is pointless, you're comparing something else, maybe the application the render engine is attached to, workflows, pretty much anything but the render engine or it's output.

If you want softer renders then again I wouldn't use the Cone filter, though if you're after that EIAS look then I'd chose Catmull, or even just the standard AA will be less sharp but sharp enough for most purposes while being good quality versus time payoff, Cone is just one of the poorer AA algorithms in general, and the others are softer, in fact everything is softer than sinc, with video being the softest of the lot, I do find however that adding a slight sharpening after AA results in a better looking image (though the emphasis is on slight), most people I know complain that C4D's renders are too soft.

I think you'll find that yes white light *is* boring in CG renders, because in real life you do not get white light, not even in a studio sorry, you might have a close to white (but never that close) illumination source but the sensor/film has it's own grade and bias and the environment creates a much more complex and rich illumination color. Really this is one of the things where if you cannot tell that it looks bad in CG with default lighting, materials etc then it's going to be very hard for you to improve your own skillset. But trust me, it doesn't look good and is one of the hallmarks of amateur lighting, I think if you were to spend some time experimenting with different off white coloration lighting in any application you would begin to find that your image quality would improve no end and your own critical facility will improve too. When you're aiming for realism in CG it's really all about imperfection.

I'm not confusing fill lighting with ambient. In your scenes it looks like you have too much light, now you could be using ambient lights too but it doesn't look that way as I see areas that are darkened, therefore I assume fill lights, if you have a surface that is luminsecent with GI enabled then you are getting fill lighting from that as it becomes another "emitter". You should avoid the use of ambient lights too, in Modo this means as in Lightwave that if you're not using indirect illumination (GI to the rest of the world) you must remember to turn off the ambient light unless you never want to see a full black except when a surface color is full black itself as by default it has an ambient intensity of 0.05, which effectively results in a reduced tonal range, in C4D ambient lights are off by default, so it's not an issue unless you're very old school and like to use them, in which case my advice is *don't*, they were a hack for the days before GI and computers were acceptably fast. If you do use them then make use of them in conjunction with ambient occlusion at least (though only via multipass and composting in post as straight AO tends to look bad).

In general it looks like lighting and shading are two areas you really need to work on, because the materials used look like stock presets to me with little attempt to improve them. You should start by experimenting further not just with the basic settings, but also with the more advanced ones, both Modo and C4D support multiple illumination models that should be mae use of where appropriate, in addition I'd recommend against pure use of procedural shaders for texture generation, they are useful to augment material effects but you really need to start makign use of both bitmaps and vertexmap shaders. Giving even a slight subtle variation will really bring your renders to life and add levels of realism that pure proceduralism has a much harder time doing (it has a tendency in the hands of inexperienced users to look *too* even), what's more it's often a lot faster to texture with bitmaps once you have properly UV'd your objects than with procedurals, it can help build a great starting point, and give you an instant feedback you can't get from procedurals, in addition bitmaps tend to be less processor intensive than procedural shaders so wherever you can get away with using them, do, it'll not only look better, but it will render faster too!

PaulS2
07-06-2009, 11:01 PM
Um, I think you're reading something that isn't there into what I posted, projecting any?

I'm just asking some question to qualify what you're stating, so that maybe you can either inform or be informed, and also making some suggestions that could help improve Martins renders and the value of the thread itself, there's no point comparing apples and oranges after all.

I think I can read quite well.

As an example of where C4D looks dreadful....there is an image in your personal gallery which is a bottle against a graduated background. The hotspot behind the bottle is extremely blown out...a typical problem I see in many of C4D's renders. The tonal range is heavily compressed...there is very little subtle shading in the gradation. The C4D rendering engine is capable of subtle shadings but after much, much tweaking is done...this is one of it's inherant short-comings (in my opinion). Obviously you didn't take the time to extend the tonal range....maybe you were just getting a feel for the rendering engine when you created this image. I don't know ..but it's a perfect example of where C4D falls short in many cases.

Per-Anders
07-07-2009, 04:10 AM
I think I can read quite well.

As an example of where C4D looks dreadful....there is an image in your personal gallery which is a bottle against a graduated background. The hotspot behind the bottle is extremely blown out...a typical problem I see in many of C4D's renders. The tonal range is heavily compressed...there is very little subtle shading in the gradation. The C4D rendering engine is capable of subtle shadings but after much, much tweaking is done...this is one of it's inherant short-comings (in my opinion). Obviously you didn't take the time to extend the tonal range....maybe you were just getting a feel for the rendering engine when you created this image. I don't know ..but it's a perfect example of where C4D falls short in many cases.

OK, yup an old image there however the blown out was on purpose in that case as it was based on a studio photograph (not by me) that had roughly the same amount of blowout and falloff as was the style of the time. It has nothing to do with the overall available tonal range though, simply a stylistic choice.

it seems that you really don't read (quite apart from that your somewhat strong language about C4D seems to undermine your earlier assertions of impartiality in favor of a rather ignorant bias) as you still haven't answered the other questions, the reason why they are important is because they cover the "effect" you describe that you are perceiving (and certainly has nothing to do with render engine optimization), and as such explain a lack of understanding about rendering.

Allow me to demonstrate why gamma is important, the image you chose from my gallery was processed as linear and never converted to true monitor gamma space. Why is gamma important? Because your monitor does not display linear color as visually linear, it's perceptually dark. Try turning off all color management in a program and produce a linear gradient from white to black, what you see is effectively not a linear gradient, but one where there's a lot of dark but not so much light color, now apply gamma and you get a far more visually linear gradient.

http://www.per-anders.net/general/linearversusgammagradient.jpg
The top gradient is in linear space, the bottom one is gamma corrected for a PC monitor, though of course all monitors vary and without correct setup will result in a different percieved bias.

So how does this relate to what you see in C4D? Well quite a lot, lights as we know in the real world falloff according to the inverse square law. Gamma as we know is effectively the application of a power to the value, i.e. compensation for this. In practical terms this means that you will get a smoother falloff from lights when you make use of gamma corrected to your screen. We can see this in practical example here, lets look at a simple light set up to look a bit like the background in that "frog" image of mine. Now without gamma correction it looks "blown out" and dark like this :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/light_linear01.jpg

This is what you personally don't like, now if we apply gamma correction using the color correction post effect in C4D or render straight from Modo as Modo has gamma correction on by default we get a result like this :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/light_gamma_uncorrected01.jpg

This is ok in terms of rendering, the same area is still bleached out however it doesn't look as noticeable thanks to the smoother gradient caused by the gamma attempting to match your monitors color profile a little more, but not really perfect, to make it right we have to adjust the color back to compensate :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/lighte_gamma_corrected01.jpg

This now looks much better, there is noticeably less bleaching out and a smooth decay from the light-source. So what about on objects, yes the same thing applies, as an example we can look at a very basic scene I quickly slapped together to help explain this.

First here's a basic render, GI, standard lights, no atmospheric sky.

http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4d_standard_no_gamma.jpg

And with gamma correction (i.e. what you'd get out of Modo by default using the same textures, lights) :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4d_standard_with_gamma.jpg

And indeed this is roughly what we get, sorry that in this case i've not been very careful, just plonking the same textures on the same objects purely to see the Gamma/Light falloff differences with a cubic map (no implicit uv's), sorry I couldn't get the displacement to be happy in Modo with the projection UV seams that result, hence why it is off in this render, but you should be able to see the noted similarities.

http://www.per-anders.net/general/modo_output_gamma_22.JPG

Modo by default has it's gamma set to 1.6, which is correct for Macs (between 1.6 and 1.8 usually), PC's typically have their monitors set up for about 2.2 which is what i've used here, so if you're on a Mac you may find the brightness/bias a bit strong/washed out.

To give a fair trade example, this is what happens if we turn the gamma correction off in Modo:

http://www.per-anders.net/general/modo_output_gamma_off.JPG

Again you can see how it "compresses" the color gradient as in the top C4D image. You'll find this happens in all render engines (basically there are only so many ways to implement Phong, Blinn, Inverse Square rules and Image Sampling and so on).

And now with a later in the day setup, but vastly pushed sun light brightness at sunset to help create the effects that you attribute so readily to the C4D render engine :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4d_contrast_no_gamma.jpg

And with fully corrected (apart from sun itself) gamma :

http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4d_contrast_with_gamma.jpg

Even though in this case the bright points remain, simply adjusting the gamma results in a much smoother result. This is totally down to the user to make use of or apply, it's not hard to do in any app.

Hopefully this little rough and ready explanation will help enlighten a few about gamma and how it affects render output and "compresses" the tone curves for render engines. Now there are differences between each render engine in other areas, GI accuracy, speed, program workflows, SSS algorithms, glass rendering, displacement, DOF, MoBlur, AA, pixel filtering, depth and control etc where each engine has it's pros and cons. In some AR falls down flat, in others Modo and the others do. But when you do want to compare each feature the more you understand about renderengines and rendering in general the greater the chance you will have of being able to discern and work out exactly what is so very different as you will be able to eliminate as many factors such as gamma in this instance in your comparisons, that's important if you want to really be able to compare results in an intelligent and worthwhile way that's of benefit for all

For instance the examples I've posted are only of use for gamma comparison and light falloff, nothing else, the materials do not match up 100% in projection, nor content and certain effects are disabled in one but not the other. As an explanation for why - I originally hadn't planned on doing a Modo render with them, but decided to at the last minute just to give a complete demonstration of the effect of Gamma on the render and dynamic range of the image as seen by both engines purely for any lingering doubts that you might have that the results would be the same.

Anyhow, if you really want to compare renders, I suggest working with a much simpler setup at first, match one element at a time, you'll both learn more about rendering and about the render engines you're using by doing this than just randomly trying otu different things in each.

Martin Kay
07-07-2009, 06:49 AM
deleted post

Per-Anders
07-07-2009, 07:43 AM
Hi, this technical stuff is all very well and I understand exactly what you are saying- I'm working on a Win machine which is an Eizo, colour calibarated using a Spyder. I use a cheap uncalibrated, (other than a fiddle with the Adobe gamma utility), Dell, to construct my web site and post images to a probably mostly Mac world. In the days when I used a Mac for 3D and Win for web sites I set the gamma for my posted images halfway between Mac & Win, as a compromise, knowing full well they weren't truly representative of the original look.
However this doesn't really answer the question as to why perhaps 95% of the work on Maxon's Gallery looks oversharp, with a computer generated look, almost as if it has a line drawn around everything. Hence my attempts to loose this look by trying to finder a softer alias.
You don't really need to get all technical to get a feel of how a render looks. I've made quite a few tests trying to get c4d to look like Electric Image and basically you can't do it. For a start c4d's aliasing is totally different from EI, but it's more something to do with how objects are shaded by the render engine. I largely experimented with the contrast settings of the lights which is about all you can do.
Anyway, I deleted all the posts relating to my input in this thread- none of this stuff is so important- better to get on with a proper project.


Martin K
But rendering is a technical subject, not really a "feely" one, there are good algorithmic reasons why there are differences (and similarities) between render engines, that's much more useful information for people to know than just opinion that seems more like trying to stir a pot. If you want to talk about feel then the render engine is out of the equation, because the old ones hold true, it's about the artist not the tools. But I thought this was a thread about render engine comparisons, not artistic merits, and therefore an opportunity to explore that (and at least the thread should contain some real information rather than just opinion paraded as fact and disinformation).

With regards the Maxon gallery, well a lot of those renders are going for a look that the artists are actively persuing, it's a particular popular look of the moment especially in architectural visualization, people are adding as much sharpening as they can get away with, it looks ultra pristine and crisp and unfortunately as far as I'm concerned also flat. I would say though that there is a good reason why I posted the bad renders thread in the first place, most people just use things in their default settings, default lights, default materials, default everything, if you want to have a render with softer aliasing that is easily achievable but most people never change the settings and just lump a bit of sharpening on in Photoshop after the event. There are numerous AA algorithms in all render engines and that includes C4D, and my previous post was demonstrating the very fact that you have lots of control over the illumination, the shading (that most people do not attempt to leverage).

This is why you should look at the gamma (and most artists don't), and absolutely you have far more than the contrast settings in lights to control shading, did you even look at the illumination controls in the materials? Or at the post effect options?

Thing is, if you intend to explore a render engine then you will have to "get technical", by it's nature rendering is a technical process, each engine has it's own preset setup that most people use, but the people that produce the best renders generally go way beyond the defaults. Even something like Maxwell requires a certain degree of understanding about emitters, gamma/linear space, textures and rendering to get the best out of it. If you're not willing to get technical (and C4D and Modo are far from technically complex when it comes to rendering), then you're always going to bounce around looking for something that you can't get, because the only render engine that will look exactly like EIAS is Camera in EIAS (and EIAS is still being produced if you really just love that one engine). But you can get close in all the other render engines provided you're willing to dive in and actually try to understand what's going on a bit more, and more to the point you really should be getting a better result as you as an artist improve and as your technical knowledge improves, no matter what render engine you use.

Martin Kay
07-07-2009, 08:13 AM
'But rendering is a technical subject, not really a "feely" one'

The end result is about feeling, how you feel about the look, what the look communicates to you, no matter what technical hoops you have to jump through to get the look you like. You may need some degree of technical understanding about using the software, but any visual media is art, good or bad and that's all about feeling in so many ways. Actually everything is art.

Per-Anders
07-07-2009, 08:48 AM
Just as an example, I quickly rendered out these, a few seconds each with different AA settings so you can see that there is plenty more than merely "outlines" sharpening. This is stuff that's covered in the help/manual for any render engine (check the section in the Modo Help on it too). I've included two levels where sharpening is applied (which is what a lot of C4D users do because they like the look).

This is from blurriest to sharpest, Area is the blurriest when set to 100% area, it's also the nastiest of the AA's IMO, very cheap and looks it too.

http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa01.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa02.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa03.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa04.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa05.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa06.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa07.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa08.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa09.jpg
http://www.per-anders.net/general/c4daa10.jpg

I don't really see most of those as being "oversharp" or "outlined", even given the superbright lighting and overheavy bumps I have in there, which would classically result in such effects regardless of AA used. In fact most of them are over-soft as far as I'm concerned.

Now in Modo you have 5 options, Box, Triangle, Gaussian (default), Catmull-Rom and Mitchell-Netravali. In general I wouldn't pick anything but the last three (at least on any modern machine), Box is a particular offender for poor quality AA with oversharpness, in general though all methods are sharper than about the "Animation" AA method in C4D.

It also has to be pointed out that what many view as AA is often to do with texture handling too, it's possible that this is another area you see significant differences in and shoudl be considered quite separate from AA generally speaking, EIAS had particularly nice texture handling giving good crisp results with a soft general border. This comes from a combination of other factors, in procedurals sampling deltas, in bitmaps sampling methods. It's one area where each engine really can have a dramatic difference. Another area is in bump handling. VRay for instance has a very nice detailed bump that exhibits characteristics of paralax shading and handles self shadowing, I'm not sure if EIAS ever had such behaviour, I've not seen the like in Modo, but I have in C4D and Lightwave via plugins (not by default though). Each of these can affect the perceived sharpness of an image and it's feel just as much as the AA itself which of course gets applied to the lot, sometimes it's best to let the AA engine handle it all, generally though it's best to make use of the tools that help speed up the render though that pre-sample textures (like MIP sampling).

It's an important set of areas to know how to control in any render engine, though there are those that throw it all to the wind and just render double size then scale down generally there are much better and much quicker ways to do things by having knowledge of the technicalities. And honestly this stuff takes 5 seconds to read about in the manuals or even try out for yourself before you get to the "big" render.

Per-Anders
07-07-2009, 08:55 AM
'But rendering is a technical subject, not really a "feely" one'

The end result is about feeling, how you feel about the look, what the look communicates to you, no matter what technical hoops you have to jump through to get the look you like. You may need some degree of technical understanding about using the software, but any visual media is art, good or bad and that's all about feeling in so many ways. Actually everything is art.


Yes, for the viewer.

For the artist it's about communication, you need to have the control over your tools necessary to achieve that, to achieve control over your viewer basically. If it's purely about getting the message across and no technicalities then there's no point in comparing or even discussing/dissecting render engines at all because the sharpness of AA and the shading in the illumination model isn't really going to move anyone, only the content does - the message itself, and if it's just about "feel" for you then you're talking workflow at best (which is I think a legitimate thing to talk about on a technical site), or it's back to technicalities, beacuse the feel of lighting requires technical skill to acomplish for instance.

Martin Kay
07-07-2009, 09:13 AM
deleted post

PaulS2
07-07-2009, 01:47 PM
There is some useful and interesting information here but it has gone past the point of being balanced with the qualities which individuals find pleasing or attractive...the aesthetics of output. This is after all a visual art. And art is more than a series of controlled techniques or technical justifications.

Without a full understanding and a good grasp on technique, the quality of the communication one strives for is seldom created. Justifying why something is right when it looks bad is just as incomplete of an answer.

Thanks for taking the time to provide the information you did regarding gamma but it still doesn't answer the question or resolve the problem in regard C4D's render. Maybe some but definitely not all.

Looking back at your glass bottle image where you stated it was an intended effect...I guess just about every render done in C4D has that same intention then? And whether or not it was intended, it still looks less than stellar and completely unbelieveable no matter how much technical justification you throw at it.

And in all honesty I don't think anyone here is being completely impartial. Obviously your toes got stepped on in regard C4D by your tone and defensiveness...and I make no claims as to being technically accurate or impartial, at all. Some people like chocolate and some don't. No matter how much explaining away why one has a preference, either way, doesn't make the other wrong or less accurate in the field of aesthetics and art.

I use tools which appeal to me in their ability to acheive what I want from them. No matter how much technical explanation is given why something is 'right'...if it doesn't look right then to me I don't have to use it and don't have to like it either. You don't have to agree nor feel threatened by my inclination to not like something you might.

The bottom line is ...use the tools you like and produce the best you can with them. As will I. I also don't find these tools to be so precious as to be above comment or criticism. They are tools and they are produced for our use. If I don't like the way something behaves when I use it and other tools I have do...then I use the other tools. It's quite simple.

ThirdEye
07-07-2009, 02:24 PM
Looking back at your glass bottle image where you stated it was an intended effect...I guess just about every render done in C4D has that same intention then? And whether or not it was intended, it still looks less than stellar and completely unbelieveable no matter how much technical justification you throw at it.

Send me whatever glass scene you want and we'll see. Tools nowadays can all do amazing things, you just need to know how to use them.

ediris
07-07-2009, 03:49 PM
I will like to thank Martin,Paul and Per for these information regarding monitor gamma calibration and color space.
Edgard

Martin Kay
07-09-2009, 08:58 AM
I will like to thank Martin,Paul and Per for these information regarding monitor gamma calibration and color space.
Edgard

I'm taking up the keyboard...

baobab
07-09-2009, 09:49 AM
I have been using C4d for a few years now, and modo since 301.
I used FR within C4d (also as beta tester for Cebas).

I can't see the original posts, since MartinKay seems to have deleted all traces of the first posts in this thread.
I seem to understand that this thread was about quality of the render output.
However, I have been able to get good results with the various engines I have used.
Each has its advantages.
I would say though that with 401, the biggest advantage for me in modo is the workflow.
I am able to setup a scene as I want it much faster than I am with C4d or C4d/Fr.

The live preview in modo makes a huge difference, as a lot about rendering has to do with tweaks. FR is often quite poor in this area, I guess since it is a plugin implementation: in large scenes, you need to wait a couple of minutes to see a preview update.
C4d AR is somewhere in between.

Another plus is the way the tone mapping /gamma/ white level is implemented, so you can tweak it with the render window with a smaller render, and adjust the render settings accordingly.

ediris
07-09-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm taking up the keyboard...
I picked up Wakeboarding at Batam(Indonesia), is not wave surfing but better than staring at a PC for leaving. I spend quite a bit at looking at any way of art, there is a show these weekend with artist coming from an italian circus.
Rendering an animation in EIAS after trying with C4D(CLothlide)and the wind deformer. FOund that with the Linearr Wave i could achive my goal. On the other hand i havent find an app that in a few minutes of work could be possible to finish a decent animation like C4d.
Is about getting used to the workflow. Modo Shading system gets in the way of my workflow.
You guys should give a try to Infini-D that is some good glass.

Edgard

Martin Kay
07-09-2009, 02:27 PM
deleted post

PaulS2
07-09-2009, 02:51 PM
It's nice to have a distraction/hobby in life. I find the guitar to be quite good in that regard...I have one guitar. It's a Gibson CS '59 335. Great guitar!!

Back on topic.....:-)

I got my 401 upgrade a few days ago. I can't believe how unstable it is:-( I'm actually a little surprised Luxology released something which crashes so often. So, in all fairness to this thread, I may not be a huge fan of C4D's rendering engine, all the time, but I sure love it's stability.

Martin Kay
07-09-2009, 06:27 PM
deleted post

PaulS2
07-09-2009, 06:39 PM
Yes, I like semi acoustics- I've had a few over the years. I fancy a keyboard again, never really bothered to learn them much in the past but am more inclined to take the trouble nowadays.

401. Are you running on Mac? I haven't found any problems yet other than the interface slowing down a bit. I've still been modelling in 302 though and rendering in 401, but haven't tried out much of the new stuff yet.
You see what I told you about c4d- it enables you to actually get a job done! ;-)
Re Modo, I must be one of the very few to actually ask for my money back because of the flakeyness of the symmetry system in 301. Of course I know that once you've handed over the cash that's it. Don't think I was very popular, but what's new...

Martin K


I've had so many keys over the years....had a fairly large studio set up in LA. I needed to get away from all of the digital menus eventually and found the simplicity of guitar to be just right.

I've been crashing both on the Mac and on the PC...but only with trying the new features. Yes, C4D does allow one to get a job done...until you try to______ :-) Though, I'm starting to think I should have taken the $400 and got the 50% off deal and spent more for Vray. If it's connection to Rhino was better (without spending another $400) I probably would have.

You know...it actually crossed my mind to ask for a refund after having it for a few days and crashing every 15 minutes. Actually with EI too after being told it would run using 10.4.2...which it won't. Oh well.

On a positive note. Rhino is a spectacular modeler. Brazil is a spectacular render which works with Rhino very well. Fry does too.....I guess eventually Modo will be solid and stable. Lots of great features and for SDS it's great.

PaulS2
07-24-2009, 12:52 AM
On a positive note. Rhino is a spectacular modeler. Brazil is a spectacular render which works with Rhino very well. Fry does too.....I guess eventually Modo will be solid and stable. Lots of great features and for SDS it's great.

I've been digging into Modo the last 10 days or so and enjoying how full featured it is. I haven't been using much in the way of new features and haven't had much problem with stability. Replicators seemed to be where I had most issues?

I'm really enjoying working with SDS and the sculpting tools...perfect organic modeler which I've just scratched the surface of. Rhino and Modo pretty much cover all of my modeling needs. Rendering too. I think EI will still be the one I reach for for the simple animations I occasionally do.

ediris
07-24-2009, 06:21 AM
I find that for motion design C4D is the best. Get stuff ready in no time and very stable, Modo on the other hands (v401) is very unstable. I am on the Mac here so probably is a Mac thing.

I donot you guys but the tools help depending which industry are you in. I need some good tracker and easy integration of text. The rest is just create a nice model in no time, and be able to pass illustrator files and extrude them as you pleased.

Edgard

jorust
07-24-2009, 08:06 AM
I´ve used modo since day 1, but I´ve added C4D to my workflow, because modo is starting to letting me down in some area.

Did some GI test, comparing modo 401 and AR3, and I was VERY impressed by the speed and quality of the AR3. I´m new to the AR3, so I just selected the IR+QMC Still Image setting and hit render. The result was STELLAR! :bounce:
The render took 3 minutes.

Tweaked the modo render to render in 3 minutes, and compared the result. Well, I already knew that modo could not match in speed or quality. I can up the settings and let modo render for hours, but it can´t get the same clean GI render as AR3. :banghead:
I´ve compared modo 301 with 401 and the result is exactly the same, so nothing has been done to modo´s GI engine in 2 years.

Really looking forward to use C4D more and work in a more stable environment...

Here´s the test images. Render in 1200x800, downsized in iPhoto to 1024x682.

Modo 401
http://gallery.me.com/janoverust/100057/401/web.jpg?ver=12484213590001

AR3
http://gallery.me.com/janoverust/100057/AR3/web.jpg?ver=12484213780001

Seraca
07-24-2009, 08:51 PM
So Far 401 has been "fairly" stable on my Mac ( OS 10.4.11)
only one crash that I can recall
it taking me a while to get use to the tools/workflow though.

ediris
07-25-2009, 01:00 AM
So Far 401 has been "fairly" stable on my Mac ( OS 10.4.11)
only one crash that I can recall
it taking me a while to get use to the tools/workflow though.
Maybe is Leopard ?.

Martin Kay
07-25-2009, 06:42 AM
deleted post

ediris
07-25-2009, 10:48 AM
I've abandoned 3D and dismantled my site for the time being, having suddenly got very bored with it... Looked at the current version of the 3D World Mag and thought how artificial and hard edged everything in 3D looked... mostly. Bought me self a keyboard and am really enjoying that and learning to read the dots...
C4d is not all that bad- you don't need to use the 'sinc' alias mode which gives you that razor brittle hard edged look that is in perpetuation on the maxon gallery. c4d is very reliable.

Martin K
Hi Martin, than you probably havent seen http://www.nervo.tv/ lots of amazing works by Nando Costas.

Edgard

Martin Kay
07-25-2009, 12:32 PM
deleted post

Seraca
07-25-2009, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the link. I thought the site has a pretty awful interface- not doing the work justice.
When I say awful I mean time wasting, gimmicky and pointless. This sort of stuff achieves nothing over a plain html page.

Martin K

Agreed even the choice of fonts used was very bad

ediris
07-25-2009, 05:12 PM
Agreed even the choice of fonts used was very bad
:) very bad, why? Elaborate more on your opinion since the term ¨very bad¨doesnt exist when referring to a design.

Edgard

tjnyc
07-25-2009, 09:59 PM
Yeah... you are not the only one to notice how unstable Modo 401 is. It was bad with 301, then got better with 302, but its back to being a very buggy/crash happy app. Modo has always had problem with instablity since 1.0 and still haven't improved much in this area. I still use it and will continue to use it, because the benefits out way the negatives, but lux needs to really do something about the instability of this program.

It's nice to have a distraction/hobby in life. I find the guitar to be quite good in that regard...I have one guitar. It's a Gibson CS '59 335. Great guitar!!

Back on topic.....:-)

I got my 401 upgrade a few days ago. I can't believe how unstable it is:-( I'm actually a little surprised Luxology released something which crashes so often. So, in all fairness to this thread, I may not be a huge fan of C4D's rendering engine, all the time, but I sure love it's stability.

PaulS2
07-25-2009, 10:06 PM
They just uploaded an SP1 for 401 so hopefully that has fixed some of the 'looseness' and 401 will become more stable. I haven't tried the new version. After using 401 for a couple of weeks I'm very happy I did get it and it will definitely add much needed capability to the other tools I use.

Martin.....don't get too disillusioned with 3D - it's a constant artistic battle of creating what we envision balanced against the sterile nature of digital tools.

Martin Kay
07-30-2009, 08:40 AM
deleted post

Bmoner
08-03-2009, 05:33 AM
@ Martin Kay

This may be a dumb question...but why is every post made by you deleted?

The continuity of the thread breaks for me when your posts come into play. I'm not sure what's happening here. Maybe it's just my computer???

NimaDez
08-10-2009, 02:29 PM
Ok, I spend half-hour to end this debate .. I get 5 crash in Modo within 30 minutes and I'm not in good mood :hmm: !!

1. SCENE
I don't use Physical sky/sun and light source, only pour white background, Also use same Camera and Material settings.
RESULT >> Use "Gamma Correction" and you have 98% same results !!

http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=145132&stc=1

2. CAUSTIC
I use two volumetric spot lights with falloff and one Illuminated plane at top, Also use exactly same colors and reflection/transparency settings.
RESULT >> CINEMA 4D is the winner for both Quality and Speed in Caustics!!

http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=145133&stc=1

Note: Render with Core2Duo 2.33 (x64)

FACTOID:
Modo have easier workflow, great Poly/Subd modeling tools and friendly Interface .. But I feel lack of Stability and good render engine for Caustics and Volumetric lights.
I think before luxology work on Fur/hair and Animation, Most do something with Modo's unstable core !! (personally I like to see modo as ultimate modeling package, nothing more!) .. Also you can notice few problems with rendering small details in modo!

This is while Cinema 4D R11 with AR3 Module have far better Render engine for Caustics and Volumetric lights and it's far more stable than Modo 401 (or even 3dsmax - I'm 3ds user for 15 years, I know how buggy it is).

Anyway, I think ANYONE can use any GI-RENDER ENGINE to get stunning photorealistic images ... from MentalRay, Vray, FinalRender, Maxwell and Hypershade to Built-in Modo render and C4D AR3 module .. I think all of them act 90% same, because their goal is same, their Goal is to generate Photorealistic Images in Less Time!!

Sorry about my English Grammar .. Have fun !!

runejw
08-13-2009, 11:36 PM
Personally I'm thrilled with Modo 401's render engine. Sure it may lack some features that C4D's Advanced Render v3 has, but it's a close call, especially if one takes the price tag into account...

Anyway, quite happy to be able to render a GI image like the one below in 25 seconds flat :thumbsup: (Core i7 920, not overclocked) ... and not use hours to figure out sensible values either... (basically just the default settings, the 6PM environment and a shadow catcher)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5858/modotest1.jpg

baobab
08-14-2009, 12:01 AM
I am partial to modo401 too;
I use AR, final render and modo.

The quality comparison game is always tricky, because everyone has a primary render engine they work with. I have gotten some good images out of all three engines.

Each has its strengths.
The really big advantages for using modo are these:
- Workflow. This is the biggest factor. The interactive preview in modo is a real time saver.
I can setup a scene much quicker than in C4d, because the feedback is much quicker.
(And the interactive preview render in C4d does not compare...)

-Assets. I am really impressed with the material assets in 401. They give a good basis for setting up the scene materials. Again a real time saver.

Martin Kay
12-16-2009, 08:58 AM
You did a good job squeezing what you could out of AR3, Martin.

I have no fault in your artistic presentation or concept....well executed! I do find fault with the render engine. The whites, especially in the knobs, are very C4D looking....very abrupt, compressed tonality. This is a case where if something like Fry or Maxwell was used...you might not see huge differences at first (the first hour or so) but if the render engine was run for awhile, the amount of subtle shading and beautiful detail would just make the C4D image so dead and flat looking ...you would never want to use it again:-)

Just for the record. I am in no way criticizing your use of C4D. It has it's strengths and also limitation. You've done a good job with it here.

Hi Paul, looking again at Modo & C4d work on their respective galleries, Modo does on the whole look more 'natural' in that it doesn't have that awful brittle over sharpened look that most of the c4d stuff does have. Also tonally it appears better with this 'compression' or lack of tonal separation thing you've been on about. I've never really been aware of it my self with c4d. I think it's a basic lighting problem and users not using the app for what it's capable of- after all there are plenty of parameters in c4d to control the quality of lighting which beggars the question as to why so much stuff on the c4d gallery looks awful. One can't be sure of course how much your monitor 'colors' what you see and what OS gamma you are working with.
I think one problem is that users have been recommended to use the 'sinc' setting for ultra sharp aliasing which just doesn't look right compared to what we are all used to seeing photographically.
I hear you've had problems with Modo 401- does this apply to the SP2 version also? I think there's a SP3 imminent also. I personally haven't really touched 401 much. The reason I rendered my last work (the strat) in c4d was because Modo was so slow after a certain point and I quite hate the shader system. C4d made mincemeat of rendering the model and I was quite happy with how it turned out. Again, it got the job done... ;-)

One reason I halted on 3D for a bit was the horrendous long render times for half decent interiors, especially with Modo, even with 8 core... I think with the latest chips and using c4d this can be alleviated to some extent, especially if you link up another computer, which is what I plan to do in the new year. I'll probably get the latest version of c4d also...

Talking of dynamic range, I got rid of my two Nikons and bought a much better camera at a fraction of the price- a Fuji 200EX. It can utilise about 4 extra stops of dynamic range using its EXR sensor technology- this to me makes it infinitely more useful as a camera whose results dynamically are more comparable to film- you could actually shoot a bride in a white dress standing next to a groom in a black suit without having to carefully under expose in order to preserve dress detail. Using the Nikons you still needed to shoot raw and you would still end up with poor tonal seperation but this time in the low end, in the guy's suit.

Martin K

For any other subscribers to this thread, this is the jist of what the original post of mine was about, before we got into an argument about it. Revisiting the subject it's still quite plainly obvious that some kind issue exists with a lot of what I see on the c4d gallery. Before anyone shouts, I'm absolutely not anti c4d, ant this or anti that...

The image/images in question were the two Strat images at top of this page:
http://www.martinkay-3d.com/guitar.html

futagoza
12-17-2009, 05:45 PM
That´s somehow funny to me, despite you, Paul and me are comming from the EI camp i have absolutely nothing to critique about the superb image quality you obtained with C4D.

BTW. Martin, long time ago you said you would prepare a comparison with your modo "red kitchen" scene = EIAS vs. modo. Are you still considering doing it. It would be so nice to see that, in case you updated to V8.

Keep up the good work,
Stefan

ediris
12-18-2009, 03:45 AM
I second that Stefan, it is a superb image, which should be in the c4d gallery. Martin is one of the reasons i got into c4d. Till the day i am having a nice experience with the software, not that any of these 3d app cant do the job is just easier to setup.
I am giving another shot at Modo, and one of the features i find very handy is the physical sky and camera. How do you make your shadows softer using physical sky?
And how do you setup a multi-pass render?
Edgard

Martin Kay
12-18-2009, 09:34 AM
That´s somehow funny to me, despite you, Paul and me are comming from the EI camp i have absolutely nothing to critique about the superb image quality you obtained with C4D.

BTW. Martin, long time ago you said you would prepare a comparison with your modo "red kitchen" scene = EIAS vs. modo. Are you still considering doing it. It would be so nice to see that, in case you updated to V8.

Keep up the good work,
Stefan

Hi Stefan, thanks for your kind words! I've always been relatively happy with c4d, but there have always been a few issues and listening to Paul's comments over the years made me look maybe a bit harder at what I did and how c4d perforned- Paul is a perfectionist and I'm not sure his demanding standards are always totally relative to the execution of everyday work.
I did play around with my 'red' kitchen in EI, but as always with EI some frustration crops up- the Vs 8 of EI, which I have, was a bit of a letdown and some of the newly touted features weren't that easy to use, plus I found it was unusually hungry for memory.
Modo renders the scene slightly nicer than c4d, but without a shadow of doubt, blurry reflections in c4d are better and faster in c4d, which with room sets is a real necessity.
Getting a grain/noise free render from Modo requires quite high settings and you need to be very methodical in setting it all up.

Martin K

Martin Kay
12-18-2009, 09:42 AM
I second that Stefan, it is a superb image, which should be in the c4d gallery. Martin is one of the reasons i got into c4d. Till the day i am having a nice experience with the software, not that any of these 3d app cant do the job is just easier to setup.
I am giving another shot at Modo, and one of the features i find very handy is the physical sky and camera. How do you make your shadows softer using physical sky?
And how do you setup a multi-pass render?
Edgard

Hi Edgard, you can put a degree of softness cast by an infinite light in Modo. Vandigital does a very nice set of tutorials where he shows how to combine various lights with physical sky, amongst other things. His site has quite a number of essential tutorials for Modo users where he covers the use of GI and all the various settings together with optimising area lights.
Personally, currently I'm inclined to render out of c4d and to model in Modo with the occasional use of Rhino- the problem with c4d is that it's a bit expensive to upgrade c4d especially as I haven't done any paying work lately.

Martin K

Grolicus
12-18-2009, 11:33 AM
ediris, for the multi-pass render:

Get into the shadertree, and click the + sign before Render (on top). Usually, you'll see 2 passes (final and alpha).
Just add or copy an output, and rightclick on the rightmost column entry: it'll give you loads of possible outputs like e.g. lighting, reflection or normal.
You can change the output properties for each pass in the properties panel below.

ediris
12-18-2009, 12:01 PM
ediris, for the multi-pass render:

Get into the shadertree, and click the + sign before Render (on top). Usually, you'll see 2 passes (final and alpha).
Just add or copy an output, and rightclick on the rightmost column entry: it'll give you loads of possible outputs like e.g. lighting, reflection or normal.
You can change the output properties for each pass in the properties panel below.
Thanks for the huge tip, is there anyway to isolate or to get object buffers out of Modo, i find these very useful in my workflow.
Thanks,
Edgard

PaulS2
12-18-2009, 09:27 PM
Hi Paul, looking again at Modo & C4d work on their respective galleries, Modo does on the whole look more 'natural' in that it doesn't have that awful brittle over sharpened look that most of the c4d stuff does have. Also tonally it appears better with this 'compression' or lack of tonal separation thing you've been on about. I've never really been aware of it my self with c4d. I think it's a basic lighting problem and users not using the app for what it's capable of- after all there are plenty of parameters in c4d to control the quality of lighting which beggars the question as to why so much stuff on the c4d gallery looks awful. One can't be sure of course how much your monitor 'colors' what you see and what OS gamma you are working with.
I think one problem is that users have been recommended to use the 'sinc' setting for ultra sharp aliasing which just doesn't look right compared to what we are all used to seeing photographically.
I hear you've had problems with Modo 401- does this apply to the SP2 version also? I think there's a SP3 imminent also. I personally haven't really touched 401 much. The reason I rendered my last work (the strat) in c4d was because Modo was so slow after a certain point and I quite hate the shader system. C4d made mincemeat of rendering the model and I was quite happy with how it turned out. Again, it got the job done... ;-)

One reason I halted on 3D for a bit was the horrendous long render times for half decent interiors, especially with Modo, even with 8 core... I think with the latest chips and using c4d this can be alleviated to some extent, especially if you link up another computer, which is what I plan to do in the new year. I'll probably get the latest version of c4d also...

Talking of dynamic range, I got rid of my two Nikons and bought a much better camera at a fraction of the price- a Fuji 200EX. It can utilise about 4 extra stops of dynamic range using its EXR sensor technology- this to me makes it infinitely more useful as a camera whose results dynamically are more comparable to film- you could actually shoot a bride in a white dress standing next to a groom in a black suit without having to carefully under expose in order to preserve dress detail. Using the Nikons you still needed to shoot raw and you would still end up with poor tonal seperation but this time in the low end, in the guy's suit.

Martin K

For any other subscribers to this thread, this is the jist of what the original post of mine was about, before we got into an argument about it. Revisiting the subject it's still quite plainly obvious that some kind issue exists with a lot of what I see on the c4d gallery. Before anyone shouts, I'm absolutely not anti c4d, ant this or anti that...

The image/images in question were the two Strat images at top of this page:
http://www.martinkay-3d.com/guitar.html

You haven't been around for quite awhile.....mind you, I haven't either. Been so busy with work.

Modo's gallery is top notch...one of the best in the business. Modo 401 with the Service Pack is fine but I do find Modo runs out of memory very quickly with any displacement added at higher res. I guess time for a 64 bit system. Just finished up a billboard size project which only EI could touch. That old dog is still good for some stuff...used V6.5. I'm mostly in Rhino/Brazil - such a nice combo.

I haven't been to C4Ds gallery recently but I remember the exact look you are refering to. Maxon should bundle AR3 with the basic C4d, at a low price, and attract all of the 3D scragglers, like myself, to get a copy. I imagine one day I'll need to look at getting it again...the last demo I tried didn't do much to inspire me. Lot of stuff is the same...I wish they would take their basic tools and do a serious professional re-working of them..their text, extrude, so-called nurbs tools. They should also get nPower to develop PowerNurbs for C4D...that would catch my attention!

That camera sounds like a good one!

Martin Kay
03-19-2010, 08:54 AM
You haven't been around for quite awhile.....mind you, I haven't either. Been so busy with work.

Modo's gallery is top notch...one of the best in the business. Modo 401 with the Service Pack is fine but I do find Modo runs out of memory very quickly with any displacement added at higher res. I guess time for a 64 bit system. Just finished up a billboard size project which only EI could touch. That old dog is still good for some stuff...used V6.5. I'm mostly in Rhino/Brazil - such a nice combo.

I haven't been to C4Ds gallery recently but I remember the exact look you are refering to. Maxon should bundle AR3 with the basic C4d, at a low price, and attract all of the 3D scragglers, like myself, to get a copy. I imagine one day I'll need to look at getting it again...the last demo I tried didn't do much to inspire me. Lot of stuff is the same...I wish they would take their basic tools and do a serious professional re-working of them..their text, extrude, so-called nurbs tools. They should also get nPower to develop PowerNurbs for C4D...that would catch my attention!

That camera sounds like a good one!

Hi Paul
Some snow shots from the FUJI 200EXR which are much better than anything I ever got from the Nikons. http://www.martinkay-3d.com/snow.html

I've decided to bite the bullet and purchase C4D 11.5, the XL version (so as to get Net render) and also to get Vray for c4d. I guess it'll be 64 bit and I'm starting off realising a small render farm is a necessity. Currently it'll be a Intel i7 Extreme (6 core) as the main machine with a lesser spec i7 machine together with my existing AMD dual. I'm looking forward to using Vray and I'm already messing more with the c4d demo...its fast, if not Fryrender!

Martin

PaulS2
03-19-2010, 05:03 PM
Sounds like you have some nice tools....lots of productive fun!

I think C4D with Vray wold be a great combo. Every now and then I think about upgrading my seat of 3D Max and getting Vray for it. Maybe one day when 64 bit apps are all the norm.... I guess that will be pretty soon.

Martin Kay
03-20-2010, 09:19 AM
Sounds like you have some nice tools....lots of productive fun!

I think C4D with Vray wold be a great combo. Every now and then I think about upgrading my seat of 3D Max and getting Vray for it. Maybe one day when 64 bit apps are all the norm.... I guess that will be pretty soon.

Funny you mention Max, I've been considering that too. Have been reading the manual and trying out Vs 2010 Design.

PaulS2
03-20-2010, 01:47 PM
I have my earlier version which I use time to time.....it being V5.3. Some of Max's tools are very well developed but I mostly use it for the nPower nurbs pluggin. It gives some very unique tools which nothing else has.

I've yet to find a 3D program which gives me all of the control and toolset I need for my day to day work. My last project I was on had me using all of the 5 3D programs I use....all going at the same time. Rhino, Max, Modo, EIM and EI. Really a pain at times but I get the work done the way I want it done.

I'm wondering if 64 bit programs will allow me to render at super-hi res like EI. Last week I needed to output at 15,000X10,000 and EI was the only one which could do that without crashing. EI can be clumbersome to work in after having something like Modo but it still does the work which gets thrown at it without too much complaining.

Martin Kay
03-20-2010, 04:03 PM
I have my earlier version which I use time to time.....it being V5.3. Some of Max's tools are very well developed but I mostly use it for the nPower nurbs pluggin. It gives some very unique tools which nothing else has.

I've yet to find a 3D program which gives me all of the control and toolset I need for my day to day work. My last project I was on had me using all of the 5 3D programs I use....all going at the same time. Rhino, Max, Modo, EIM and EI. Really a pain at times but I get the work done the way I want it done.

I'm wondering if 64 bit programs will allow me to render at super-hi res like EI. Last week I needed to output at 15,000X10,000 and EI was the only one which could do that without crashing. EI can be clumbersome to work in after having something like Modo but it still does the work which gets thrown at it without too much complaining.

Modo & Rhino are handy to have for convenience sake. I've been looking at Max 2010 and am very impressed by what I've seen so far- anyway as far as modelling goes- it seems well sorted and has a work flow that has been thought out. Maybe Max is not so expensive after all when you compare it to the likes of c4d which seems quite stilted and limited in the modelling dept. Max being an industry standard attracts more work for a freelance if you are just working on bits of scenes. If I knew I was going to always be doing complete finished jobs I would still be tempted to go the c4d /Vray route, although c4d for all its many upgrades is quite renown for its lack of tailoring to specific tasks like engineering or archi vis.

Martin Kay
04-21-2010, 01:34 PM
I spent some time thinking about a new set up. ie hardware and whether I update my old version of c4d 8.5. The hardware is a no brainer really- just get the fastest set up available on a pc, which appears to be a dual quad core Xeon machine with loads of ram... I'm not against render farms per sec, but most set ups, with the exception of Max, seem to have no end of difficulties setting up.
Deciding on software was quite tricky. I tried out both Max 2010 and a quick look at 2011, but to me they appear over heavy with 'redundant' features, like three ways, or more, of seeing what's in your scene, plus what appears to me to be general over complication. On the plus side Max has very good training and loads of books DVD's etc etc. Upgrading to Cinema Studio with a subscription actually costs more than Max with a subscription. I think it's a myth that c4d is easy to learn- parts are easy, parts are quite tricky, like Bodypaint. Parts of the manual contradict within a few lines, or that's how it seems to me.
Now it's not like I don't want to spend the money, because that's not an issue, however when I look at it Modo seems to be the best choice for quality of output, training materials and ease of use (for what I need to do). I was very tempted to shell out over £3000 for c4d, but really it's not terribly good value for money when you compare it to Max.

Martin K

PaulS2
04-21-2010, 02:43 PM
I've been playing with FryRender over the last day as a new version was released - V1.5. I still can't get over how beautiful the reflections and refractions are which it produces. EI and Brazil start to approach this degree of clarity and 'organic' complexity - but they don't get there in my opinion...but there is a huge, huge render hit with Fry. I'm seriously looking at Arion. I think I'll wait a bit to see how it develops before jumping on it. Modo has a Fry pluggin just about to be released so I'll be curious to see how that can help in my workflow.

I didn't find Max at all hard or complex to learn. I really liked the fact that the curve and bevel tools were so well developed. They got a lot of stuff very right in the first place. I think it's my favorite 3D app...as long as I have Rhino and nPower's importer.

I think Modo with Rhino is a great combo....good back and forth communication.

I'd buy C4D if they would upgrade their basic tools and work up a sound importer for Rhino .3dm. Also upgrade their basic raytracer so it had the depth and quality you can 'easily' get from Brazil or EI. C4D's basic toolset is years...maybe even 10 years, old. It's the meat and potatoes tools I need to work flawlessly and they don't really.

I think C4D is way over-priced ...as is Max too but at least with Max you get a very complete toolset....for the most part.

Sounds like your hardware is going to be very nice!!

Martin Kay
04-21-2010, 09:50 PM
I've been playing with FryRender over the last day as a new version was released - V1.5. I still can't get over how beautiful the reflections and refractions are which it produces. EI and Brazil start to approach this degree of clarity and 'organic' complexity - but they don't get there in my opinion...but there is a huge, huge render hit with Fry. I'm seriously looking at Arion. I think I'll wait a bit to see how it develops before jumping on it. Modo has a Fry pluggin just about to be released so I'll be curious to see how that can help in my workflow.

I didn't find Max at all hard or complex to learn. I really liked the fact that the curve and bevel tools were so well developed. They got a lot of stuff very right in the first place. I think it's my favorite 3D app...as long as I have Rhino and nPower's importer.

I think Modo with Rhino is a great combo....good back and forth communication.

I'd buy C4D if they would upgrade their basic tools and work up a sound importer for Rhino .3dm. Also upgrade their basic raytracer so it had the depth and quality you can 'easily' get from Brazil or EI. C4D's basic toolset is years...maybe even 10 years, old. It's the meat and potatoes tools I need to work flawlessly and they don't really.

I think C4D is way over-priced ...as is Max too but at least with Max you get a very complete toolset....for the most part.

Sounds like your hardware is going to be very nice!!

So if I understand correctly Arion is not as accurate as Fryrender but renders faster- how much faster?
C4d is really a place for rendering and texturing, not modelling and as such is far too expensive. I like the idea of Vray and there's marginally less to learn for me coming out of c4d. Max has a very well thought out help system and everything is really well cross referenced and I was impressed by the modelling stuff- they've had years to get it right. Don't go much on the old material set up, but that's changed now.
When I first started with Modo I never thought I'd get on with it, but I really like the way it goes together- I'm hoping to do some good stuff with it. I've never been too keen on long renders so I think it's a real fast machine or nothing really.

Martin K

PaulS2
04-22-2010, 12:24 AM
I really have no idea on how accurate Arion is or isn't...the gallery images look fine and the render times are quite amazing. But, until I personally give it a try it's all speculation to me. It's exciting though....the future of rending looks promising.

Modo's gallery has a lot of great images by some very talented artists. I don't think one could go wrong learning it's toolset well.

If the Fryrender pluggin for Modo works well I think it will be a nice addition to what can be done with the app.

I think I need new hardware too....well, after another new guitar:-)

Martin Kay
04-28-2010, 05:23 PM
I think I need new hardware too....well, after another new guitar:-)

Yes, I got one of the new American Standard Strats a couple of months a go- sunburst- plays real nice on the fender Super Champ tube amp. I'm sorely tempted to get a Les Paul Traditional Gold Top- just love that creamy ever so slightly overdriven clean sound.

Martin K

PaulS2
04-29-2010, 03:17 AM
Yes, nothing like a new guitar!:-) Les Pauls are some of my favorite guitars - I have a jr which is getting some mods done to it right now.

My 335 is a very nice one.....just installed some Throbak pickups in it and it went from a great guitar to an outstanding one. I'm a real fan of some of the boutique manufactures.

So, did you get C4D or Max?

Martin Kay
04-29-2010, 11:27 PM
Yes, nothing like a new guitar!:-) Les Pauls are some of my favorite guitars - I have a jr which is getting some mods done to it right now.

My 335 is a very nice one.....just installed some Throbak pickups in it and it went from a great guitar to an outstanding one. I'm a real fan of some of the boutique manufactures.

So, did you get C4D or Max?

Max or c4d- haven't totally decided. Still thinking about it. Luckily I got 30 days on 2010 and then another 30 days with 2011. Trouble is there are so many pros and cons and then again I could just stick with Modo and not have to spend out ( and get a new Les Paul... plus a few other bits!) I'm very familiar with c4ds material system and really like it, whereas I'm not atall struck with Maxs system. One important factor is the availability of training for subjects like UVs, hair and cloth. Spend over £3000 on c4d and the training is poor and in the case of Bodypaint, non existant compared to the amount of stuff that caters for Max. It can get really boring learning new 3d programs especially if you just want to get on and create something, so it tends to leave me with Modo which I have a fair grasp of generally.
Currently what I'm really thinking is Gibson or PRS...in some respects Gibson have the edge on sound, depending on what you want, but PRS are more versatile and certainly more a known quantity when it comes to quality of manufacture.

Martin K

PaulS2
04-30-2010, 01:34 PM
That's a fair bit of cash and it would be completely worth it if either one could do everything you needed it to in 3D...but, unfortunately no one app has all of the needed tools.

Each one has it's pluses and minuses. Modo and Rhino with Brazil and Fryrender allow me to do 90% of my work. EI for large format or animations. I wish I could find one which did everything I require a 3D app to do.

I have a great fondness for Gibson guitars. They seem to just work for me and have the right vibe and all. PRS are great guitars but always leave me feeling flat in some way....I also find them too garish.

Give me a great Historic R4 goldtop or R8 tobacco plain-top! Yet, I have neither.

PaulS2
04-30-2010, 05:51 PM
I was just checking out Arion again.....if I were you I would just use Modo and get Arion as there is a Modo pluggin released.

Once I spend some money on a new machine, Arion will be my next purchase. I love using Fryrender and with the speed of Arion I think Modo/Arion will be a nice combo.

Martin Kay
05-01-2010, 01:46 PM
I was just checking out Arion again.....if I were you I would just use Modo and get Arion as there is a Modo pluggin released.

Once I spend some money on a new machine, Arion will be my next purchase. I love using Fryrender and with the speed of Arion I think Modo/Arion will be a nice combo.

I assume Arion uses both the CPU and whatever you have on your graphics card? I don't quite understand how Fryrender is so slow, yet they can develop Arion which they say is also unbiased but is loads faster? Currently I would have specced the most fastest/current Nvidia GeForce card to use with my new machine- it was a 285, but the company I use say there is a faster one out soon/or even now.
Edit: Having read up a bit, it appears that current GeForce Nvidia cards are fine, all having the Cuda technology. It appears there are now faster cards than the aforementioned 285...

Martin K

PaulS2
05-01-2010, 02:56 PM
I'm not very technically savy on why and how it all works...from what I believe to be true is that the current video cards have tremendous parallel processing capabilities and this is what Arion and some of the other card renders use to great effect. The 285s seem to be very good for this sort of stuff.

While Fry is slow...it's not 'that' slow, especially V1.5. I think if I pushed the settings for similar quality in Brazil or Modo...or even EI (and I don't think they could approximate the same results), their times would probably be in the same ballpark.

Martin Kay
05-02-2010, 09:26 AM
I'm not very technically savy on why and how it all works...from what I believe to be true is that the current video cards have tremendous parallel processing capabilities and this is what Arion and some of the other card renders use to great effect. The 285s seem to be very good for this sort of stuff.

While Fry is slow...it's not 'that' slow, especially V1.5. I think if I pushed the settings for similar quality in Brazil or Modo...or even EI (and I don't think they could approximate the same results), their times would probably be in the same ballpark.

I think I read somewhere they were talking about rendering in minutes rather than hours... It's true some of the 'standard' renders are quite slow especially when it comes to blurred reflections, which obviously in archi interiors are very heavily used. I believe this is where vray scores with its reputed speed for rendering soft reflections.

PaulS2
05-02-2010, 09:07 PM
The thing with Fry and I guess (?) with all unbaised renders is is that everything is reflective and most materials are to some degree blurred, so right off there is going to be a render hit. Illumination in a scene is based on reflectance...as in real life. Someone who really knows could answer I'm sure.

I installed the Modo pluggin today...seems to work well. The only thing with Fry and also Arion, is that once you are in their interface you cannot transform any objects. Can't move, rotate or scale and for me and the type of work I do, I need to tweak, very finely, just where a refection hits or a hot-spot occurs. This means I have to close out Fry...go back to either Rhino or Modo, 'guess' at the tweak and start up Fry again. The official story is is that speed is gained by having 'fixed' geometry in Fry. In some ways it's almost a deal breaker for me as one of my visual tools is specular and reflective hot-spots and the accurate placement of them. If it isn't one thing it's another:-)

I'm also going to look at Octane render as it appears to deal with transformations in a useful and predictable manner.

In my use of Vray, I haven't found their blurred reflections to be particularily faster than Brazil's. May be but didn't feel like it to me.

Martin Kay
05-08-2010, 08:49 AM
In my use of Vray, I haven't found their blurred reflections to be particularily faster than Brazil's. May be but didn't feel like it to me.

probably faster than AR3 though...and much faster than Modo. I just got a Les Paul Gold Top...what a revelation- actual stays in tune and is actually tuneable...Really well set up and playable, nut etc. This version has been 'Plekd' and very unusually you can play a mixture of open ( a classic problem chord being an open A and open D) and barr chords and they all sound really right. I had a Les Paul during early 80s and I was really dissapointed with it- couldn't tune it for a start- it never sounded right- don't know why. (I know how to tune and intonate a guitar!) I've had quite expensive guitars that have actually had the frets cut as much as 20% in the wrong place... anyway I feel a model coming on- in Modo (to stay slightly on forum topic)

Martin K

PaulS2
05-08-2010, 01:25 PM
That's great! Sounds like a wonderful guitar...I am definitely jealous:-) I really need to get myself another LP - there is nothing like a great playing and sounding Les Paul.

It sounds like your 'software' money was spent not for software:-)

Modo will be the perfect modeler to create a LP model - put the WIPs up so we can see it's progress.

I'm spending the weekend exploring Octane render. Either it or Arion are definitely in my future. I love the look of Fry and if Arion is 20X faster for only a small fee for a new video card, I think I'm sold.

PaulS2
05-08-2010, 08:22 PM
I've been using Modo as a way to export .objs from Rhino into Octane. For what-ever reason it doesn't like the direct export without Modo's help.

But, have to say, I am really liking Octane. Very fast and it's wonderful to have direct feedback over everything. I have a feeling this will be the future of rendering. Very good speed...it's definitely a beta but quite good and solid.

Martin Kay
05-08-2010, 09:31 PM
I've been using Modo as a way to export .objs from Rhino into Octane. For what-ever reason it doesn't like the direct export without Modo's help.

But, have to say, I am really liking Octane. Very fast and it's wonderful to have direct feedback over everything. I have a feeling this will be the future of rendering. Very good speed...it's definitely a beta but quite good and solid.

I might try it when I get my faster machine- I never realised there was so much power to be had from the GPU. Some nice samples on the gallery there.
I wasn't really up for spending so much on Max and having to spend time to learn it especially when Modo is sitting right there in front of me. I'll see how Modo performs with a faster machine before I make any decisions re software... and the Les Paul was so tempting.... I have a few big projects to clear before I get to modelling the guitar. I'm also working on a model of an old Rolleicord camera in Modo ( I had three of them once when I used to shoot weddings- many moons ago...)

Martin K

futagoza
05-09-2010, 06:29 AM
I've been using Modo as a way to export .objs from Rhino into Octane. For what-ever reason it doesn't like the direct export without Modo's help.


The "MOI3D to Octane Render Tutorial" thread on the MoI Forum discusses the Vertex Normal issue with the Octane Renderer, in case you mean shading issues.

Regards
Stefan

PaulS2
05-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I might try it when I get my faster machine- I never realised there was so much power to be had from the GPU. Some nice samples on the gallery there.
I wasn't really up for spending so much on Max and having to spend time to learn it especially when Modo is sitting right there in front of me. I'll see how Modo performs with a faster machine before I make any decisions re software... and the Les Paul was so tempting.... I have a few big projects to clear before I get to modelling the guitar. I'm also working on a model of an old Rolleicord camera in Modo ( I had three of them once when I used to shoot weddings- many moons ago...)

Martin K

Sounds like you are very busy...be sure to post some images.

I never realized the power either...nice render!

PaulS2
05-09-2010, 02:16 PM
The "MOI3D to Octane Render Tutorial" thread on the MoI Forum discusses the Vertex Normal issue with the Octane Renderer, in case you mean shading issues.

Regards
Stefan

No...I just crashed the app everytime I tried to load in an .obj from Rhino. Exporting from Modo works fine.

futagoza
05-09-2010, 03:09 PM
Strange,

here on OSX it works more or less, with the Rhino for OSX beta.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc193/Stefan002/octane.jpg

Regards
Stefan

PaulS2
05-09-2010, 07:49 PM
The guy from Refractive Software acknowledged the problem with Rhino (PC) syntax.

I've been playing with the render this weekend and have to say I'm amazed and blown away with it's speed and quality! The interactivity is so fluid and opens up so much creativity. It's still missing much in the way of features, being early beta, but I'm sold. This does in seconds what other render's do in minutes...and does in minutes what other's do in hours.

futagoza
05-10-2010, 06:35 AM
GPU rendering technology is quite impressive indeed. For me however i can not use much Octane due to the limitis of my Graphics Card. It´s only an NVidia GT 120 with 256 MB. Octane eats up all my computing power and slows down my iMac to much.

BTW. Interesting with this particular Rhino .obj file was that modo is the only app i have which can display the .obj geometry properly. All my other software either failed in displaying the geometry correct or loading it properly...

Regards
Stefan

PaulS2
05-10-2010, 04:20 PM
I just put in a CUDA enabled card this weekend to give Octane a try. It's a 260 GTX which is pretty low on the totem pole but a major step up from what I previously had. It allowed me to evaluate Octane.

I am completely blown away by this technology...this is what I have been waiting for in 3D rendering tools!! I can't believe just how fluid this render is....well thought out and the interface is great!

I've been working on some old test models and can't believe how easy it is to get completely new and fresh ideas and lighting conditions. This will impact my commercial work greatly. And not only does it look good and is simple to use...it renders in freak'n minutes instead of hours!!

Modo is a great tool to have. I'd be sunk on some projects without it.

Martin Kay
05-17-2010, 09:01 AM
I just put in a CUDA enabled card this weekend to give Octane a try. It's a 260 GTX which is pretty low on the totem pole but a major step up from what I previously had. It allowed me to evaluate Octane.

I am completely blown away by this technology...this is what I have been waiting for in 3D rendering tools!! I can't believe just how fluid this render is....well thought out and the interface is great!

I've been working on some old test models and can't believe how easy it is to get completely new and fresh ideas and lighting conditions. This will impact my commercial work greatly. And not only does it look good and is simple to use...it renders in freak'n minutes instead of hours!!

Modo is a great tool to have. I'd be sunk on some projects without it.

This sounds very promising. I shall certainly try this when I finally get around to getting a new machine... Also It'll impact on specification of machine I need to get- ie cheaper!

Martin K

CGTalk Moderation
05-17-2010, 09:01 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.