AR3 still can't get close to Vray in Exterior renderings?

[Per-Anders]

Ok



.

[Neil V]

Bet you feel better now you've got that off your chest.... :applause:

[MorpheusMan]

Well Vray is at least twice the price of AR3 too. So you'd expect a little more bang for your buck!

Morph

[tonare]

Sure Vray is amazing and it should be for the price, but a lot of this is up to the artist. I have confidence in ar3 being able to hang with vray. It might take a bit more playing around with and setting up but you can achieve those type of renders with AR3.

[gantonr]

So you'd expect a little more bang for your buck!

bang! ;-)

http://vrayc4d.com/uploads/gallery/comthumb/11/plants01_lwf_2s.jpg (http://vrayc4d.com/gallery/shop-images/458-image-1.html)

[robodesign]

AR3 is slow :)

[ThirdEye]

AR3 sucks.






:rolleyes:

[Neil V]

I use VRay and love it. However, there is a lot to be said for AR3. It can produce some great results. I recently did an animation using AR3 and I wouldn't have considered using VRay because AR3 produces flicker-free GI pretty much straight out of the box. You can achieve this in VRay but believe me there is a hell of a lot more setting up and testing to be done.

For comparable results check out this site: http://amscenes.com/

AR3 is pretty close in my opinion.

[artzfx]

At least AR bakes! still waiting in hope that VRAYforC4D will get it one day... ho humm :sad:

[imashination]

At least AR bakes!

Mmmm... cake

[Shademaster]

Haha! Funny thread is funny.

If you know your workflow you could easily bump AR3 up to Vray spec image wise. It all depends on your view of things and how you approach certain problems.

[soccerrprp]

goodness, how many times do we need to see threads like this??? different approach to same ends..... that's what i've concluded....

eesh.

[Katachi]

I like AR3 a lot and i think is very good for any task... but the sky system with GI, is not even close to a vray sun light system in results...

Any proof for this? :)

[ThePriest]

Use GI portals with Per-Pixel QMC (or just QMC) sampling and the physical sky setup becomes a powerful and quite flexible option.

[indeep]

"Use GI portals with Per-Pixel QMC (or just QMC) sampling and the physical sky setup becomes a powerful and quite flexible option."

Any image to see? .. that was the whole point of this post, not to discuss much, but more to see SOME IMAGE of AR3 in exterior renderings, the only image i see in this thread its a vray one :P

To make it clear: We all love AR3, we just want to see some good exterior AR3 images because we know it can be as good as Vray :)

[ThePriest]

The whole comparison thing has been done to death

Ironically, when Cinema 4D's native engine was less capable than it is today, it still stood up to other engines that are geared more towards quick interior visualization.

AR needs a fair amount of tweaking to get it to behave like VRay, but its absolutely possible.

[ThirdEye]

Mash: i'm tempted to let you turn this thread into a Labyrinth one.

[chi]

dude look at neilv post...the link has scenes in it that are rendered in c4d and vray...lots of stuff there...

[imashination]

You have just 13 hours until this thread becomes mine forever!

http://3dfluff.com/files/bowie.gif

[indeep]

imashination: "You have just 13 hours until this thread becomes mine forever!"
First: What does that means?
Second: I love Laberynth, my fav movie of all times :)

[MorpheusMan]

It's a play on lines from the movie. You must know it if Labyrinth is one of your faves.
LUUUUUUUUUDDOOOOO!
Love that movie. I know the baby from it, though he's grown up now of course. Hehe.

"Ello"
"Hello?"
"Nah, I said ello! But that's close enough"

Morph

[indeep]

yes... in the movie he was talking about the baby... I just don't understand what that has to do with having this thread forever .. is not so interesting thread yet, not even 1 image of an AR3 exterior... :P

[MorpheusMan]

He is just swapping the subject matter of the line from "baby" to "thread". Like I said, it's just a play on words.
I got two words for you all...

Magic....Dance!

Morph

[JoelOtron]

Would be interested in seeing exterior AR3 shots as well. Seems to be lots of bathrooms and hallways, but havent noticed many exteriors

[Per-Anders]

You know if you want to see what the engine can do, rather than ask other people to provide examples, try it. Make some yourself (or yourselves really as several people seem to have echoed the request in this thread).

If you attempt and succeed you'll be happy, if you fail then you can always get feedback and help on the forum, either way you'll improve your own skills, learn about the app properly and possibly if you share your findings help others in turn, and it'll be a whole load more productive for the forum. If you don't attempt then what's the point? You can go to a gallery if you just want to look at pretty pictures and you still wont know how to paint.

[andrewillingworth]

Guys, the examples for an against are all pretty stunning images - all this has come a very long way, and clearly the line is a fine one indeed, I suppose the debate is a bout workflows etc etc. I have a question regarding the plants in the images, have these been modeled for the scene and or is there a plug in for this? To me as much as the quality of light is critical it is the creative content too.

[gantonr]

Guys, the examples for an against are all pretty stunning images - all this has come a very long way, and clearly the line is a fine one indeed, I suppose the debate is a bout workflows etc etc. I have a question regarding the plants in the images, have these been modeled for the scene and or is there a plug in for this? To me as much as the quality of light is critical it is the creative content too.

they was modeled in growfx (http://exlevel.com/%20)and then transfered in advanced render and (http://vrayc4d.com/files/242_mentor-plants-vol.1-all.html) vrayc4d formats for cinema4 (http://vrayc4d.com/files/242_mentor-plants-vol.1-all.html) also with vrmesh proxy files, thats why they so many on images, actually every tree 1-3 millions of polygons, so there is 100 mil polys in scene with different trees types (7-12 used), yes i know that new AR 11.5 can handle that in render, but in viewport, when you load 30 mil in viewport (it`s mine wish to maxon with better import with no "apl. not respoding" ? :( with vrmesh from file does not need memory in viewport, they simple cubes, but you can use lowpoly mesh for viewport, that included. ;-)

http://www.vimeo.com/7023873

just info ;-)

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4964/proxy05.jpg

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6162/liliac01.jpg

[andrewillingworth]

Thanks for the info... very usefull. I think the the trees I have been using came form X frog. But it has limited species and no hedges, so thanks for the links.

[lllab]

i would really say there is no need of those X versus Y, Ar versus Vray threads.
they both are very good engines, both with their special strenghts, they both are different and and they both are also friends.

as they are technically very different, and have different concepts behind, they will be never identical. - on the other hand, as the vray team loves c4d and also AR, vray uses a lot of some good AR functions with supporting and using its native shader system, and combines it with its photometric lights, Materials, GI and cameras. and it is built on the c4d system (therefore "friends").

a talented artist can render today on any software, which she/he uses is a matter of taste, needs of functions, kind of tasks and jobs etc.

best is to have a few good engine in your tool set. if you want to concentrate only on one, depending on Your work you can also choose either and will be happy probably.

we as c4d users can be quite happy that we have that many good engines available on C4d now, which makes the plattform a lot more open and more professional. that each engine will look different and have different advantages will always be. that in fact is the sense of the extra engines;-)

cheers
Stefan
vrayforc4d.com

[LemonNado]

Mmmm... cake
Last time I baked I did not get cake but cookies.... are you sure you tried it with AR3 not AR2?
R

[JoelOtron]

Yeah I get it. Its the artist not the tool.
Still, if anyone could point me to a good gallery, it might be inspiring if nothing more?
To be honest I dont get much time with the GI features as my day to day work tends to usually focus in other areas. Still learning a lot about this stuff.

You know if you want to see what the engine can do, rather than ask other people to provide examples, try it. Make some yourself (or yourselves really as several people seem to have echoed the request in this thread).

If you attempt and succeed you'll be happy, if you fail then you can always get feedback and help on the forum, either way you'll improve your own skills, learn about the app properly and possibly if you share your findings help others in turn, and it'll be a whole load more productive for the forum. If you don't attempt then what's the point? You can go to a gallery if you just want to look at pretty pictures and you still wont know how to paint.

[ThePriest]

Physical sky + GI portal. 5 minutes to setup, 5 to render.
Raw render, no color correction. Easy as can be.

http://www.priest3d.com/cgtalk/petals.jpg
*old petals scene (close up)

[ThePriest]

Physical sky only. 2 minutes to setup, 36 seconds to render.
Raw render, no color correction. Easy as can be.


http://www.priest3d.com/cgtalk/giquick.jpg

[ThePriest]

1 material light source/ plane with QMC sampling.
41 seconds to render. Easy as can be.


http://www.priest3d.com/cgtalk/singlelight.jpg

[IlaySHP]

Stu, nice tests!
But topic about:
>>AR3 still can't get close to Vray in Exterior renderings?

[ThePriest]

Stu, nice tests!
But topic about:
>>AR3 still can't get close to Vray in Exterior renderings?

So it is.
I'll be sure to read the original topic next time.

[soccerrprp]

does someone have a outdoor scene with plants that they would like to share for rendering testing? if there are images, please include textures folder. this could be interesting "re-confirming" as to AR3's abilities....

[gantonr]

here simple one, sorry only vray ;-) plants there to simple (alpha plains), so you can use this ones for free http://vrayc4d.com/files/cat33.html

http://vrayc4d.com/uploads/download/exteriors/thumbs/mini/1242521774_physical_workflow_exterior_buildings.jpg (http://vrayc4d.com/files/5_pw-exterior-buildings-11.html)

[LucentDreams]

Here's a few by Computed Emotion in the 11.5 renders thread.
http://c4dlounge.eu/forum/marijn/trees.jpg
http://c4dlounge.eu/forum/marijn/tropical1.jpg
http://c4dlounge.eu/forum/marijn/tropical2.jpg
http://c4dlounge.eu/forum/marijn/mountainpass.jpg

[soccerrprp]

enough said (seen)! beautiful!

[JoelOtron]

@kai Lovely renders there--I do remember seeing those in the 11.5 thread.

gantonr's vray render is very nice as well.

[dataflow]

here are some renders (left side)
http://www.maxon.net/en/customer-stories/customer-stories/architecture.html

[ComputedEmotion]

Thanks for posting these, Kai!

Funny sidenote in this discussion: the first render doesn't use GI or any other AR3 effects. It's pretty much rendered with the Cinema 4D core. And none of the renders use the Physical Sky.

[Venkman]

Thanks for posting these, Kai!

Funny sidenote in this discussion: the first render doesn't use GI or any other AR3 effects. It's pretty much rendered with the Cinema 4D core. And none of the renders use the Physical Sky.

Further proof that the biggest factor in image quality is the artist! :thumbsup:

[Troyan]

I think what's missing here is a direct comparison between a quick external scene - the exact same scene- lit between the 2 engines using the same HDRI. Having used both and switching mid project I will tell you that Vray is superior in getting a great lighting and reflection result very quickly *for stills* but AR3 is superior in quickly getting a fast rendering flicker free result for animations. AR3 is quick to create reflections that are too contrasting and lighting that produces flareouts a little too easily. It's a bit more of a juggling act in AR3 to get a visual still that compares in finished quality to Vray. I'll make some comparison images and post them either tonight or in the morning.

[JoelOtron]

Per got me thinking.
Had some free time this evening so thought I'd give it a shot and mess around with the physical sky, altering one of the presets. Below is a buidling I needed to create for a recent project--its not quite finished. Its got all kinds of scale issues and the window patterns are a bit chunky, but it serves its purpose for these external lighting tests.

Need to to start exploring this GI stuff, never had much time to give it proper attention, but with the accelerated render times and results one can get out of it, theres no excuse not to get up to speed.

http://betatronstudios.com/Junk/bldg3.png

http://betatronstudios.com/Junk/bldg2.png

http://betatronstudios.com/Junk/bldg1.png


EDIT--tweaked levels a bit. 2.2 gamma as per....per, was blowing everything out so I adjusted as seemed appropriate. Will revisit tonight.

[Per-Anders]

Nice model. The images are OK, but you need to increase the contrast a bit. Raise the sun intensity in the sky (or change the time of year used) also as it looks like you don't have LCW going on there you can fudge some of the look by setting your GI gamma to 2.2.

[Per-Anders]

Here, maybe better to give an example, so after 10 minutes of slapping together cubes and a couple of preset objects form the arch viz library we can render and see the problem.

http://www.peranders.com/general/quick_outdoor_gi_default.jpg

As you can see it's very dark, not bad for a late evening shot, but the position of the sun (or the shadows) says otherwise! It's not very contrasty either. partly because it's taking a date from late october, and partly because IMO the default for sun brightness is quite low (but the general sky color/brightness is pretty much spot on I find), and also partly because we're not gamma correcting for our monitors (LCW).

http://www.peranders.com/general/quick_outdoor_gi_corrected.jpg

So lets jam up the sun brightness, apply gamma correction as mentioned before (actually I slapped on DeGamma, you wouldn't get exactly the same result if you just applied the GI gamma as I suggested earlier, but it would be better than nothing for sure).

And if we just apply a very quick slap of photoshop touch up you end up with sommat like this.

http://www.peranders.com/general/quick_outdoor_gi_touched.jpg

[brasco]

Now we're talking, great renders Per. :arteest:

People still seem to overlook the fact that you can hike the sun value beyond 100%..

brasc

[Shademaster]

Here, maybe better to give an example, so after 10 minutes of slapping together cubes and a couple of preset objects form the arch viz library we can render and see the problem.



As you can see it's very dark, not bad for a late evening shot, but the position of the sun (or the shadows) says otherwise! It's not very contrasty either. partly because it's taking a date from late october, and partly because IMO the default for sun brightness is quite low (but the general sky color/brightness is pretty much spot on I find), and also partly because we're not gamma correcting for our monitors (LCW).



So lets jam up the sun brightness, apply gamma correction as mentioned before (actually I slapped on DeGamma, you wouldn't get exactly the same result if you just applied the GI gamma as I suggested earlier, but it would be better than nothing for sure).

And if we just apply a very quick slap of photoshop touch up you end up with sommat like this.



Cool examples Per!

For anyone interested in a free interior scene with a direct AR3 and VRay comparison download this scene from

AR3:
http://amscenes.com/ar1/1.jpg

Vray:
http://amscenes.com/vray1/1.jpg

http://www.amscenes.com/

I tried linear Gamma workflow on it and you can get it too look like Vray a lot! Only thing that needs tweaking is the material speculars.

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/ar3_lin.jpg

[Neil V]

This is the scene I suggested back on page 1. Keep up! ;)

Cool examples Per!

For anyone interested in a free interior scene with a direct AR3 and VRay comparison download this scene from

AR3:
http://amscenes.com/ar1/1.jpg

Vray:
http://amscenes.com/vray1/1.jpg

http://www.amscenes.com/

I tried linear Gamma workflow on it and you can get it too look like Vray a lot! Only thing that needs tweaking is the material speculars.

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/ar3_lin.jpg

[lenogre01]

Mine with AR3. More yellow but nicer for me.

[Walli]

nice examples, but the poster is looking for outdoors ;-)

@Per apart from the DOF which is to heavy for my taste, very nice result for such a short test.

I think the main difference between Vray and AR3 are speculars. In Vray most people use glossy/blurry reflections - and this adds a lot to a scene, because even dull materials usually have a much stronger reflection (blurry) then we might think at first. Especially at glancing angles.
When rendering with AR3 many people don´t make use of blurry reflections and also dont use fresnel values.

So its perfectly possible, I just would say that Vray renders faster with many glossy reflections. But thats just a feeling and not measured.

[Troyan]

Doh! Vray not ready for 11.5 yet. Can't do any renders :(

[Shademaster]

nice examples, but the poster is looking for outdoors ;-) @Per apart from the DOF which is to heavy for my taste, very nice result for such a short test. I think the main difference between Vray and AR3 are speculars. In Vray most people use glossy/blurry reflections - and this adds a lot to a scene, because even dull materials usually have a much stronger reflection (blurry) then we might think at first. Especially at glancing angles. When rendering with AR3 many people don´t make use of blurry reflections and also dont use fresnel values. So its perfectly possible, I just would say that Vray renders faster with many glossy reflections. But thats just a feeling and not measured.

The thing with glossy reflections and Cinema 4D is that it is problematic. AA completely chokes up when you use it and somehow you can never get it to look smooth. It also has some physical problems with steep edges that generates Halo's and physical inconsistencies in dark areas. Layering it to get a carpaintshader will result in a 15000% rendertime increase. Moire is always present. Only option you have is tweaking your speculars with noises so you get a faked blurry reflection effect. Works well if you do your lighting well.

[pzdm]

My friend Milan Soukup uses AR 3 as well and he can not live without that. He allways use a Physicle sky feature for his speed and native settings and easy to use. HE allways does really huge resolutions for A3 pages (for sciencepopular mag. VTM Science)...

Few exaples:

http://www.3dsoftware.cz/upload/portfolios/30341/hires/@@@392.jpg

http://www.3dsoftware.cz/upload/portfolios/30341/hires/@@@327.jpg

http://www.3dsoftware.cz/upload/portfolios/30341/hires/@@@320.jpg

[JoelOtron]

Here, maybe better to give an example, so after 10 minutes of slapping together cubes and a couple of preset objects form the arch viz library we can render and see the problem.


Thanks so much Per. very nice. I've been following your linear workflow plugin threads and educating myself on the whole subject in general. I will purchase that in time. Really appreciate the sample tutorial.

[JoelOtron]

My friend Milan Soukup uses AR 3 as well and he can not live without that. He allways use a Physicle sky feature for his speed and native settings and easy to use. HE allways does really huge resolutions for A3 pages (for sciencepopular mag. VTM Science)...


Great illustrations there. Very cool concepts and compositions. Would make good sci fi book covers. Not saying I could do better by a longshot, but as good as they are, (and IMHO) they still have that sort of "painterly" quality to them, as opposed to full on photoreal. I think that's what the original poster was looking to see in an AR3 exterior shot.

[pzdm]

Great illustrations there. Very cool concepts and compositions. Would make good sci fi book covers. Not saying I could do better by a longshot, but as good as they are, (and IMHO) they still have that sort of "painterly" quality to them, as opposed to full on photoreal. I think that's what the original poster was looking to see in an AR3 exterior shot.

What´s crucial for me is: Milan allways uses really very very easy settings, nothing extra. Only one matter would be "special". He uses (me too) a lumas in Luminance channel for better speculars. That´s all...

He can not use some extra settings and technologies, becouse he needs superiour render speed for a Highres (around 5.000 pixels), thus he allways uses pretty poor settings and simple materials.

P

[Rich-Art]

Great examples Pavel. I would love to see some used settings. :)

Peace,
Rich_Art. :thumbsup:

PS: The vid was great Pavel. You know what I mean.

[K1aymen]

Yes, very nice renders from your friend, pzdm.. It would be fun to know how they look out of the render and how much is post.

[ooo]

A churchsite i did a while ago (AR3 with some post)

odo

http://www.odeontwerp.nl/churchsite.jpg

[pzdm]

I did some exteriours as well

there are not so good (DoF is not ideal) but render itself is ok...

http://www.3dsoftware.cz/upload/portfolios/35618/hires/@@@137.jpg

http://www.3dsoftware.cz/upload/portfolios/35618/hires/@@@374.jpg

[LucentDreams]

here simple one, sorry only vray ;-) plants there to simple (alpha plains), so you can use this ones for free http://vrayc4d.com/files/cat33.html

http://vrayc4d.com/uploads/download/exteriors/thumbs/mini/1242521774_physical_workflow_exterior_buildings.jpg (http://vrayc4d.com/files/5_pw-exterior-buildings-11.html)

Well one big differene I'm seeing here besides the vignette of course, is what clearly appears to be a very different ozone and turbidity default if that is the default physical sky for Vray

I don't have Vray so if anyone wants to post what the sky's settings for turbidity and ozone are then I'll be glad to try and match this scene.

[gantonr]

He can not use some extra settings and technologies, becouse he needs superiour render speed for a Highres (around 5.000 pixels), thus he allways uses pretty poor settings and simple materials.

thats the point, you absolutely right, no good settings, no materials with hard specular etc....etc....

vray image on first took 1 hour to render wit hard speculars on all leaves, sss, volume, refraction etc..in resolution 2400x1200


I don't have Vray so if anyone wants to post what the sky's settings for turbidity and ozone are then I'll be glad to try and match this scene.
no problem

vray sky and sun based on this in core
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13253655/A-Practical-Analytic-Model-for-Daylight

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/790/62521339.jpg

[williamsburroughs]

here simple one, sorry only vray ;-) plants there to simple (alpha plains), so you can use this ones for free http://vrayc4d.com/files/cat33.html

http://vrayc4d.com/uploads/download/exteriors/thumbs/mini/1242521774_physical_workflow_exterior_buildings.jpg (http://vrayc4d.com/files/5_pw-exterior-buildings-11.html)

That just looks beautiful! :arteest:

[williamsburroughs]

Cool examples Per!

For anyone interested in a free interior scene with a direct AR3 and VRay comparison download this scene from

AR3:
http://amscenes.com/ar1/1.jpg

Vray:
http://amscenes.com/vray1/1.jpg



Of these two, the Vray version feels more like a photograph...the contrast and color distribution and shading detail feels a bit more natural to my eye...but in the end, it's subjective and dependent on the type of look you are going for.

[Troyan]

AR3:
http://amscenes.com/ar1/1.jpg

Vray:
http://amscenes.com/vray1/1.jpg


Take a look at the right 2 pictures on the wall in the sunlight and the detail in the wicker hamper in both shots. Look at how much more detail is in the wicker hamper and the shadowing behind the pics on the wall in the Vray render compared to the AR3. The Vray pics look like they're against the wall and the AR3 pics look like they're floating in the air. I know this can be fixed with enough fiddling, but this is the difference for me between the 2 renderers. Vray seems to be able to do a better job in the details in the default settings than AR3. Reflections are another point of contention, but can't be seen well enough in these shots to debate.

[ThirdEye]

Of these two, the Vray version feels more like a photograph...the contrast and color distribution and shading detail feels a bit more natural to my eye...but in the end, it's subjective and dependent on the type of look you are going for.

Agreed, but the sunlight looks completely different. I see no sun and no area shadows in the C4D version, there must be something "wrong".

[Per-Anders]

The C4D version lacks defined portal shadows, should use either a higher sampling or per pixel sampling on any portals in there.

[tylerdurden369]

Hi,
I have tested this scene some time ago, this was my result.

1) delete the original sky
2) add a c4d physical sky and orientate it like in the vray render
3) GI in medium (no ambient occlusion)
4) less yellow in the lavatory/wc/vase materials
5) a bit more bump for the wall

Postprod:
- minus 5 of saturation
- I have added a bit more light inside the shelf, which is not that good…

http://www.tetsoo.com/tests/vrayc4d/Final_2.jpg

At the end I think they are quite similar, but there is a "softeness" in vray
that imo is a bit better.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this but there's an EXTERIOR scene (house n°13) also for ar3 and vray at
http://amscenes.com/

http://www.tetsoo.com/tests/vrayc4d/exterior.jpg

[Venkman]

I don't know about you guys, but I would call those "close enough".

[Troyan]

Hi,
I have tested this scene some time ago, this was my result.

1) delete the original sky
2) add a c4d physical sky and orientate it like in the vray render
3) GI in medium (no ambient occlusion)
4) less yellow in the lavatory/wc/vase materials
5) a bit more bump for the wall

Postprod:
- minus 5 of saturation
- I have added a bit more light inside the shelf, which is not that good…

http://www.tetsoo.com/tests/vrayc4d/Final_2.jpg

At the end I think they are quite similar, but there is a "softeness" in vray
that imo is a bit better.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this but there's an EXTERIOR scene (house n°13) also for ar3 and vray at
http://amscenes.com/

http://www.tetsoo.com/tests/vrayc4d/exterior.jpg

Those do look a lot more similar, but again, look at the wicker hamper and how the light and shadows play across it. Much more realistic, imo, or at least a more desirable effect on that particular object. I'm certain if this were for a client they would be very happy with the AR3 image, as well.

[Shademaster]

Is any kind Vray user willing to donate a very basic outdoor Scene with us AR3 boys so we can do a lighting comparison? I am dying to try my new workflow on an exterior Vray scene!

Thanks in advance! :bowdown:

[ooo]

Did you check the scenefile in Gantonr's post above?

[Shademaster]

Did you check the scenefile in Gantonr's post above?

Yes but it costs 29 euro. Would certainly buy if it was a commercial project but not for a test.

[ooo]

This one is free: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6172857&postcount=39

[Shademaster]

This one is free: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6172857&postcount=39

Uhm that links to a bunch of trees? Am I missing something??

[ooo]

You asked for a VRAY exterior scene and that's exactly what you get if you follow the link and download the scene. But maybe I'm missing something?

[imashination]

You asked for a VRAY exterior scene and that's exactly what you get if you follow the link and download the scene. But maybe I'm missing something?

That file linked literally goes to a page full of single trees you can buy, not to any exterior scene that as described in the post.

http://vrayc4d.com/files/cat33.html

[dataflow]

there is a better scene to render with
http://vrayc4d.com/files/202_tuscany-3d-scene.html

[ooo]

Ok I see now! It was still in my cache because there was until this morning a free Vray scene on that link as described by Gatonr in his post. This is the link I got:

http://vrayc4d.com/files/5_pw-exterior-buildings-11.html

odo

If Gatonr doesn't want this link to be public any more please let me know!

[gantonr]

Holger Schoemann was kind to make sample exterior scene for me ;-) but i have to ask his permission to share it, after it i will upload it for testings.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/856/mailgooglecom2026943.jpg


That file linked literally goes to a page full of single trees you can buy, not to any exterior scene that as described in the post.

http://vrayc4d.com/files/cat33.html
actually they FREE ;-) on this link

Tuscany 3D Scene scene have already 3 setups - vray. ar and finalrender all by Holger Schoemann, i have to find on mine PC AR setup and will upload it to.


If Gatonr doesn't want this link to be public any more please let me know!
u welcome, i must say idea of this site is to share for free files ;-) (any one can download from it without registration.)

[Shademaster]

Ok I see now! It was still in my cache because there was until this morning a free Vray scene on that link as described by Gatonr in his post. This is the link I got:

http://vrayc4d.com/files/5_pw-exterior-buildings-11.html

odo

If Gatonr doesn't want this link to be public any more please let me know!

Very nice thanks!

I'll donate a homemade Sky HDRI so everyone can try the same setup!

[gantonr]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6169/1251373795tuscanyvraywe.jpg


Cinema4D & Advanced Renderer:
http://www.doschdesign.com/pub/cgg_tuscany_ar.zip

Cinema4D & final Render:
http://www.doschdesign.com/pub/cgg_tuscany_fr.zip

Cinema4D & VRay:
http://www.doschdesign.com/pub/cgg_tuscany_vray.zip

Texturen:
http://www.doschdesign.com/pub/cgg_tuscany_tex.zip

[Shademaster]

Here you go:

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/farm_lores.jpg

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/farm_lores.zip

edit: fixed the link!

[klueck]

the link does not work...

[Shademaster]

Allright I tried to sort of get the same result as the Vray render:

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/comparison.jpg

Here is a large one (with upscaled vray render) for the pixelpeepers:

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/comparison_large.jpg

I used linear workflow for this and Color Mapping Exponential only to get better color falloffs like the luminant cubes in the vray render. GI settings are very basic, Diffuse depth 3 and Details enhanchement on, everything set to medium.

The only thing I could not match is the exact purple (that is done in post) of the surrounding HDRI. The sun need to be more yellow/orangy too.

Overall I really like how AR is holding up!

[TwinSnakes]

To be a fair comparison, the scenes should match exactly. The table the cactus is sitting on is different (the height of the shelves).

IMO, Vray advantages:

* Physically accurate materials (BRDF)
* Soft Shadows and Tone Mapping



http://www.tetsoo.com/tests/vrayc4d/Final_2.jpg

[Shademaster]

Just to show how much of a difference lin vs nonlin is I made this comparison:

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/linvsnonlin.jpg

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/linvsnonlin_large.jpg

Vray:

http://vrayc4d.com/uploads/download/exteriors/thumbs/1242521774_physical_workflow_exterior_buildings.jpg

[mikeh64]

oops - delete post

[JoelOtron]

(commenting here on shademaster's vray/ar3 test with the linear/nonlin examples)

Don't know what you guys think but to me theres just no comparison. The AR3 render is nice (Linear pass looks a bit too blown out and lacks depth/contrast) but there is so much subtlety in color and contrast in the vray render. As you follow the structures back in space along the left, the color and values are all very similar on the AR render compared with the vray render.

Of course in the vray render theres the foliage and grass that might be throwing some bounced color onto the structures, also adding visual contrast, but couldnt imagine it would affect the scene that much in relation to the ar3 rendering.

And thanks for the render comparison shademaster.

EDIT--and by the way--please do not take my comments as criticism of c4d/ar3. Im very happy with what we have--just noticing the differring qualities--mostly subtle things.

[Umbra]

Shademaster:

Is the linear image using Per-Anders Degamma plugin?

[Shademaster]

(commenting here on shademastyers vray/ar3 test with the linear/nonlin examples)

Don't know what you guys think but to me theres just no comparison. The AR3 render is nice (Linear pass looks a bit too blown out and lacks depth/contrast) but there is so much subtlety in color and contrast in the vray render. As you follow the structures back in space along the left, the color and values are all very similar on the AR render compared with the vray render.

Of course in the vray render theres the foliage and grass that might be throwing some bounced color onto the structures, also adding visual contrast, but couldnt imagine it would affect the scene that much in relation to the ar3 rendering.

And thanks for the render comparison shademaster.

EDIT--and by the way--please do not take my comments as criticism of c4d/ar3. Im very happy with what we have--just noticing the differring qualities--mostly subtle things.

Some good criticism right there.

I can so vividly remember the Vray vs AR2 thread we had years ago. It was an inspiring thread and yet frustrating to see that whatever we did, we could not get near the quality of light Vray portrays. With the latest AR that is a whole different story and I can see it being just as pleasing to a client as Vray is. Perhaps not to our own trained pixel-peeping-eye.

My biggest joy is the colorbleeding and colored light fall-off is getting there. With some more material tweaking and lighting additions you can make images just as pleasing :) . With some nice color grading you can't even see what engine it is from anymore :) .

For anyone interested here's my scenefile!

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/vray_ar3_scenefile.zip

Model is ofcourse from Vray for C4d. It has all 3 rendersettings in it, Vray, AR3 Linear (default) and AR3 non linear. Maybe you GI wizards can get it to render a lot faster with better results, my solution still has some errors in it.

What I did for color grading was make the shadows Purple, boost the yellow in the highs and only mildly tweaked the mids to get a nice falloff. The vignette was also added in post.

[Shademaster]

Shademaster:

Is the linear image using Per-Anders Degamma plugin?

Nope :) . I gave the sky a 0.4545 Gamma Filter and in the Color Correction post effect I threw the 2.2 back in there. Download the scene to see how it works!

[Umbra]

Nope :) . I gave the sky a 0.4545 Gamma Filter and in the Color Correction post effect I threw the 2.2 back in there. Download the scene to see how it works!

Downloading now
Thanks man

[jonahtobias]

Nope :) . I gave the sky a 0.4545 Gamma Filter and in the Color Correction post effect I threw the 2.2 back in there. Download the scene to see how it works!
This technique should work with textured objects too, no? Suppose I used a Brightness/Contrast/Gamma filter in my texture properties with the gamma set to 0.4545. That darkens the texture. Throw a 2.2 gamma back in post to lighten everything. That should give a result pretty close to deGamma-- I would think. No?

[Per-Anders]

Not really, that would give you a partially linear workflow. In order for all the shaders to be calculated in linear you need to color correct every color in there (some of them against their brightness sliders too), which means you have to calcualtion the value ^ 2.2 for every value, also for all lights, object colors etc. Then if you apply gamma correction afterwards you will get a LCW for gamma 2.2. By Default DeGamma uses sRGB which is very close to gamma of 2.2 (you can use custom gamma of course), but is slightly more standard, degamma just makes it easier (and takes the guesswork out). But it's nothing you can't do manually if you have the time, just that most manual LCW images i've seen show a lot of non-linear artifacts because there's just so many factors to change.

[Shademaster]

This technique should work with textured objects too, no? Suppose I used a Brightness/Contrast/Gamma filter in my texture properties with the gamma set to 0.4545. That darkens the texture. Throw a 2.2 gamma back in post to lighten everything. That should give a result pretty close to deGamma-- I would think. No?

Well sort of, deGamma does many more things than just that, for now it is a cheap workaround to get linear workflow going on.

Indeed you have to do this for all your image based textures and colors.

[chi]

my problem with cinemas physical sky is that it is far to real world...I have to choose the time of day...my location on the virtual planet...the size of the virtual planet...so many options to tweak.

[Shademaster]

I removed the scene file because it's intended use is not to be used in a discussion like this :) .

Sorry if I may have started a negative discussion about Vray/AR3. I do not want to prove a point in what is better, I just wish to understand it's inner workings.

[lllab]

hi shademaster,

i think your linear approach in AR is not yet right. the linear workflow image should be less saturated, not inverse:-)

the linear workflow can improve any rendering, regardless of the engine. so also in ar if you have the degamma plugin.

for those who all wonder what the so called "LWF" is- the linear workflow is basicly:

as the computer screens actually show all images "wrong" with gamma 2.2(1.8), a rendering will always be calculated on a wrong basis.

to overcome this one can see that for the renderer all data is original in gamma 1.0. to do so it is necessary to get rid of the gamma 2.2 on all textures and colors. in c4d one could do it with the filter shader in setting the gamma to 1/2.2=0.456 (or use degamma).
with this data the render can calculate more correct the light distribution and colorbleed.
to view the image on screen correct again, a gamma of 2.2 is given again in colormapping.

tue "LWF" can be only achieved with de gamma in AR. it should help a lot. in vray it is buitl in from beginning, there also the gi reacts to the colormapping. the result is basicly, specially ofr indoors, that you have not too drak shadows, and that the light distribution is nicer and goes more deep into the room.

so degamma is a good tool to improve your images on ar, or in vray the usage of LWF. in forthcoming 1.2 this will be a one button solution and vray will render default in a (calibrated) LWF space. ( i think in future all renderers will adapt to lwf)

cheers
Stefan

p.s.: your storage limit is exceeded on pm;-)

[Per-Anders]

I removed the scene file because it's intended use is not to be used in a discussion like this :) .

Sorry if I may have started a negative discussion about Vray/AR3. I do not want to prove a point in what is better, I just wish to understand it's inner workings.

I wouldn't worry about that, it's interesting and useful to see the comparison so I'd put it back up. I don't think anyone is too worried about either engines capabilities (or they shouldn't be), to me they both produce stunning output in the right hands.

[Shademaster]

I wouldn't worry about that, it's interesting and useful to see the comparison so I'd put it back up. I don't think anyone is too worried about either engines capabilities (or they shouldn't be), to me they both produce stunning output in the right hands.

Thanks man, I put the images back up, in my eyes both engines have their unique qualities.

The funny thing is a lot of these light and color theories are transalatable to real world photography. If you treat a CG image the way a photo/film camera would see it you can get some amazing results. There has been a very cool discussion going on on Stu Marscwitsch blog about linear workflow for instance:

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/9/30/passing-the-linear-torch.html

He does a lot of Film work and shares his workflow with his viewers, a lot can be learned from his way of treating an image. His blog is definitely worth checking out from a to z.

[tcastudios]

..... to me they both produce stunning output in the right hands.

Yup, the problem is only really when the tools are in the wrong hands :)
(That is, most of the time. My hands no exception! )

Cheers
Lennart

[MJV]

(commenting here on shademastyers vray/ar3 test with the linear/nonlin examples)

Don't know what you guys think but to me theres just no comparison. The AR3 render is nice (Linear pass looks a bit too blown out and lacks depth/contrast) but there is so much subtlety in color and contrast in the vray render. As you follow the structures back in space along the left, the color and values are all very similar on the AR render compared with the vray render.

Of course in the vray render theres the foliage and grass that might be throwing some bounced color onto the structures, also adding visual contrast, but couldnt imagine it would affect the scene that much in relation to the ar3 rendering.

And thanks for the render comparison shademaster.

EDIT--and by the way--please do not take my comments as criticism of c4d/ar3. Im very happy with what we have--just noticing the differring qualities--mostly subtle things.

Not to say which is better, because I don't have VRay and I can't make a direct comparison myself, but I agree that in this example the VRay image is head and tails better that the C4D render. The Vray render pops, and the C4D image is lifeless by comparison. I'd like to know why.

[soccerrprp]

am i the only one that is not overly impressed by the images comparisons? as i said earlier, one can get same results, but with differing approach. they are not the same renderers, so everyone should expect that process/approach/subtleties will be different.

i drooled at opp. to get vray, but am convinced, with a little or more work, perhaps, that I can get the same or comparable results using AR3. as much as i would like to be able to take advantage of vray's "quicker" setup/render, i can live with doing a little more and waiting longer for what i need and save lots of money.:)

don't take me wrong, images are fabulous, but does not prove which is "better" in my opinion.

[MJV]

How else would you compare renderers?

[soccerrprp]

this is how i look at this:

could someone reproduce the previous outdoor scene with the same render quality image (or close to it) as the render using vray? no matter what it takes or how much longer, it can be done, correct? i suspect that it wouldn't take "that" much more to achieve the same quality.

so, for me, the question was, and i quote: "AR3 still can't get close to Vray in Exterior renderings?"

well, isn't the answer to this- yes it can? not same approach, but same (or very close) to same quality images (renders) can be created using AR3.

just how i look at it... talking too much, i know.:blush:

[Canadianboy]

i know alot of people hate these threads, but i love them. So much good info is covered. Please don't move this into the rendering section because it will be forgotten about.

[JoelOtron]

so, for me, the question was, and i quote: "AR3 still can't get close to Vray in Exterior renderings?"

well, isn't the answer to this- yes it can? not same approach, but same (or very close) to same quality images (renders) can be created using AR3.


I think the process of discovering what it takes to achieve that "quality" is an interesting one personally. Of course part of that answer is "experience, skill and talent". But learning what those technical differences are can be useful.

[andrewillingworth]

Ok, this thread got me intrigued. Until now I had only been aware of Vray and had seen the quality of images that can in the hands of experienced users be produced.... for me or at least with respect to the level at which we deploy visualisations the difference was not sufficiently compelling to justify the use of Vray. I am not therefor disputing the advantages of Vray. However as this thread developed and examples of interiors proliferated it seemed to me to be pertinent to the debate that there was or is something in exteriors which is at the core of the debate more then the capabilities of the software as such. I dived in downloaded the demo version and started to make a few interesting discoveries.

As I see it in AR I can set up sky scenes, precise to the project location, important in solar studies, that it seems is not so straight forward in Vray, but with a bit of knowledge is achievable then I noticed that the sky in Vray is a beautiful clear Californian blue, however I need the more moody English type of sky. I just seems to me that the accuracy of the interior lighting capabilities of Vray aren't quite as capable as AR lighting (natural lighting - ambience) for exterior views. I appreciate that I will bring down on myself a lot of heat from the Vray pundits - pointing to my inexperience in Vray as the cause, so I will tentatively ask only this. Setting up a sun no problem, what is the most effecient way of rendering into the scene a heavy grey cloud background with its influence on the light and reflections?

[Shademaster]

I think the process of discovering what it takes to achieve that "quality" is an interesting one personally. Of course part of that answer is "experience, skill and talent". But learning what those technical differences are can be useful.

Exactly what I was trying to convey, the technical differences. The comparisons suck from an Artistic point of view, I pay attention to whole different things in an image because I always add colors in post. I need smooth transitions in the colors/dynamic range so I have more room to play with later on. The purple in the scene is entirely post for instance, in the raw render it is just blue. That means that my lighting comparison isn't exactly like Vray's and thus not a good comparison. I learned what I needed to learn from this and am very happy with both engine being here available for us :) .

[Troyan]

am i the only one that is not overly impressed by the images comparisons? as i said earlier, one can get same results, but with differing approach. they are not the same renderers, so everyone should expect that process/approach/subtleties will be different.

i drooled at opp. to get vray, but am convinced, with a little or more work, perhaps, that I can get the same or comparable results using AR3. as much as i would like to be able to take advantage of vray's "quicker" setup/render, i can live with doing a little more and waiting longer for what i need and save lots of money.:)

don't take me wrong, images are fabulous, but does not prove which is "better" in my opinion.

I think they are comparable at first glance and both would satisfy a paying client. To me it seems to be in the subtleties and details. The way Vray handles reflections, shadows and lighting across an image has subtle differences that, to me, make Vray the superior engine. Vray can just achieve a photorealistic "feel" with less fiddling than AR3. AR3 needs something like DeGamma to achieve the same tonal range that Vray seems to achieve naturally. A great comparison, I think, are blurred reflections. Especially in metals. Vray adds some sort of grain or noise to it that just gives it that real metal feel along with a depth in the reflection. AR3 tends to create too much contrast in its reflections, is the best way I can put it. One thing that hasn't been touched on is bump and displacement. Vray seems to achieve much more crisp detail in this area naturally where AR3 needs a bit of fiddling in the Delta to hone the detail. Vray's big failing is in settings for flicker free animation. Good luck. What worked for one scene is no guarantee what will work for another and there are so many settings with very poor explanation of what they all are meant to handle that it can be a real nightmare. If you can find the right combination the results are spectacular, but it's a crapshoot each time.

[Neil V]

I would use a relevant gloomy grey HDRI, go to the Environment tab in the VRay engine, and load said HDRI into both the Global Illumination and Reflection texture slots. You may have to fiddle around with the Multiplier value but in all honesty it should take you around 5 minutes. You can achieve the same using a Sky Dome Light but I find the Environment slot gives you quicker and easier results.

Hope that helps!

Neil V

Setting up a sun no problem, what is the most effecient way of rendering into the scene a heavy grey cloud background with its influence on the light and reflections?

[Neil V]

Oh, yeah and load it into the Background slot too!

I would use a relevant gloomy grey HDRI, go to the Environment tab in the VRay engine, and load said HDRI into both the Global Illumination and Reflection texture slots. You may have to fiddle around with the Multiplier value but in all honesty it should take you around 5 minutes. You can achieve the same using a Sky Dome Light but I find the Environment slot gives you quicker and easier results.

Hope that helps!

Neil V

[andrewillingworth]

Thanks for the reply Neil, I have worked through a few Tuts and begun to realise the much of vRay is intuitive. I have got some surprisingly satisfying results with only a couple of hours of thrashing around. Whereas in AR I seemed to be forever fiddling with settings.

[Neil V]

No problem Andrew.

I feel the same as you. Using VRay seems more logical and intuitive to me in operation. Having said that, some of its terminology is downright confusing. I'm sure Chaosgroup do it on purpose whereas at least Maxon seem to try their best to make understanding their software as simple as they can.

Thanks for the reply Neil, I have worked through a few Tuts and begun to realise the much of vRay is intuitive. I have got some surprisingly satisfying results with only a couple of hours of thrashing around. Whereas in AR I seemed to be forever fiddling with settings.

[ThirdEye]

Our tests don't make any sense to me. The models/scenes are too complex to make some speed testing and we need to avoid all sort of post effects/tricks like vignetting, grain and so on. Pick some simple geometry, assign some simple untextured materials, use the same GI/light settings and let's see what happens. That way you can really see how light illuminates the scene, the subtleties of color bleeding and so on.

[Neil V]

So don't include anything that might increase VRay's chances of showing it's a better renderer? Great idea. If AR3 struggles with complex geometry then maybe this a good forum to show that, no? Also, vignetting is an integral part of VRay's real-world camera. If AR3 doesn't have that feature then that is a shortcoming of AR3 and not a 'trick' of VRay. You'll be telling us we can't use Color Mapping next simply because AR3 doesn't have it.

Our tests don't make any sense to me. The models/scenes are too complex to make some speed testing and we need to avoid all sort of post effects/tricks like vignetting, grain and so on. Pick some simple geometry, assign some simple untextured materials, use the same GI/light settings and let's see what happens. That way you can really see how light illuminates the scene, the subtleties of color bleeding and so on.

[Troyan]

Our tests don't make any sense to me. The models/scenes are too complex to make some speed testing and we need to avoid all sort of post effects/tricks like vignetting, grain and so on. Pick some simple geometry, assign some simple untextured materials, use the same GI/light settings and let's see what happens. That way you can really see how light illuminates the scene, the subtleties of color bleeding and so on.

This can be done with an HDRI with a disk and some primatives. I really wish Vray for 11.5 was out :P

[Per-Anders]

So don't include anything that might increase VRay's chances of showing it's a better renderer? Great idea. If AR3 struggles with complex geometry then maybe this a good forum to show that, no? Also, vignetting is an integral part of VRay's real-world camera. If AR3 doesn't have that feature then that is a shortcoming of AR3 and not a 'trick' of VRay. You'll be telling us we can't use Color Mapping next simply because AR3 doesn't have it.

Oh good grief, enough. No one is trying to hide anything.

What you're saying makes no sense. A complex scene hides the true nature of the beast more often than not. Sure it's nice to look at but it doesn't make it easy to determine the actual differences in how the engines work and how to then work with or around that. It's not in favor of any render engine to simplify, it wouldn't be in favor of either engine to make things more complex either, but it wouldn't be in favor of anyone trying to get any useful information out of this thread either.

Post effects like vignetting and yes color mapping don't help either when you want to compare the rendering capabilities, the lighting etc of render engines either. It's exactly like comparing two similar effects in Nuke and Shake on different segments of video in order to see which is best. They're separate algorithms, the color correction and tone mapping algorithms available via post effect in AR are (as with the ones in VRay) not designed to be anything other than visually pleasing, they're not physical models, and all you would see comparing them is the difference in settings and algorithm. They're not integral parts of the render engine but ephemera. They're often good ways to hide the flaws in a boring or poor render. Post work is in fact totally vital to creating good images, but it is absolutely vital to avoid when comparing render engines, and it is not an integral part of either engine (regardless of where the options are placed in the interface).

So in conclusion, ThirdEye's request is absolutely sensible, logical and absolutely valid, I do think that it is also important to see images sans effects in order to work out what effect settings are necessary for anyone hoping to match the final image with everything enabled, I also do think that it's worthwhile having some much higher detail images in there once you've worked over the basics because that shows the differences in the GI sampling patterns, even if it leaves a lot more down to the individual behind the controls. However any more outbursts like this on this thread and I'll close it down, lets keep the content useful and please abstain from any more angry/snide attacks eh?

[Umbra]

vignetting is an integral part of VRay's real-world camera.

Can't the vignetting be turned on/off as in VRay for Max?

[ThePriest]

It's a shame the thread got moved, I was looking forward to 40 page of endless bickering and dispute. *sigh*

[lllab]

@umbra: sure, you can turn the vray vignetting on or off, and also set its intensity per slider
(like 25% or 50% etc.- just for the record: colormapping is no post effect in vray by the way. this really changes the gi and light calculation and distribution, only with linear workflow you get a physical correct image, thats why it is so important to use)

cheers
stefan

[castroman]

Interesting thread, but this compaison has been going on for ages. Some of the images look pretty darn close. I am sure the client would never notice the difference, not that you would provide 2 renders for them to choose.

If you can't get the quality you want from AR, buy Vray and move on. In the right hands, either packages can produce amazing art.

just my 2 cents.

[lllab]

i think any modern renderengine can do good images, as some already pointed out its is the artist in the end who makes the images and quality.

what tools she/he uses is his or her personal matter.
it is a bit like with cars, some like VW, some Audi, Dodge, Ferrari or BMW, some like sports car some like a van.....all cars are good probablyand bring you to your destination, and all are little different in detail and functions....a matter of taste and preference in the end.

cinema4d is very lucky to be a plattform today that have a great choice on renderes.

cheers & peace
Stefan

[Neil V]

However any more outbursts like this on this thread and I'll close it down, lets keep the content useful and please abstain from any more angry/snide attacks eh?

I hardly think my opinion was an outburst. If you look at page 1 of this discussion I was the guy who provided a link to a same scene VRay / AR3 image with 'comparable results'. So I'm hardly leaping to the defence of VRay. But it is necessary to point out to those who do not know that, as Stefan pointed out, Colour Mapping (as an example) is not a post effect in Vray and is an integral part of the GI algorithm and therefore differs from AR3.

I do take on board many of your others points though and find some, if not all, valid.

[rsquires]

so degamma is a good tool to improve your images on ar, or in vray the usage of LWF. in forthcoming 1.2 this will be a one button solution and vray will render default in a (calibrated) LWF space. ( i think in future all renderers will adapt to lwf)

cheers
Stefan

p.s.: your storage limit is exceeded on pm;-)


One button solution for LWF in Vray 1.2 me like very much. I must say DeGamma and AR3 are great but there is something about Vray, something not quite quantifiable, that makes it my preferred renderer, and so I am hanging out for the update for 11.5 compatibility.

I must say recently I got frustrated at the speed of AR3+GI for animation on my Dual 3Ghz Mac Pro and resorted to Modo to animate a scene I was working on. It's pretty successful to be honest, the renders out of Modo are quick and really decent.

all the best

Richard

[BeccoUK]

In terms of image quality then AR and Vray each fall by the wayside when compared to a good unbiased renderer such as Maxwell Render.

[Neil V]

If, in your production pipeline and your deadline allows, you have 24 hours to wait for a single render then yeah, Maxwell rocks! ;o)

In terms of image quality then AR and Vray each fall by the wayside when compared to a good unbiased renderer such as Maxwell Render.

[STRAT]

is this thread still going?

i agree it's definitely the artist that finishes the final cherry on the cake of a great render. a great artist/image is not defined and recognised by the renderer's style, but by his own.

a run of the mill artist has is work recognised by what renderer he/she uses most of the time.

as of the subject of the thread in hand? it's all rather opinionated isn't it. I'd compare the AR3 to previous releases, but not to other softwares. different peeps will like one over the other.
Personally, even though the AR3 has evolved massively and most impressively over previous versions, especially in terms of speed, user options and userbility, i find the core of what a renderer is and is ultimately responsible for - the image quality - has actually not advanced. I even find the AR3 lacking compared to previous versions. the whole feel and look of an AR3 image isn't up to what it was IMO.

We use both in our studio, but favour Vray.

[ThirdEye]

I find the core of what a renderer is and is ultimately responsible for - the image quality - has actually not advanced. I even find the AR3 lacking compared to previous versions. the whole feel and look of an AR3 image isn't up to what it was IMO.

I 100% disagree with this statement, i've read this same comment from you in the past too, but i haven't seen any evidence of that so far.

[imashination]

I even find the AR3 lacking compared to previous versions. the whole feel and look of an AR3 image isn't up to what it was IMO.

Anything specific? I ask, because nothing to my knowledge has ever been removed.

[lllab]

i think all that is a matter of taste of the artsist in the end. which tools or styles one prefer...

to me ar3 looks better than ar2.5.

cheers
stefan
vrayforc4d.com

[andrewillingworth]

It is always going to be horses for courses. This is a slightly nebulous debate - In my opinion to most people the differences, in terms of output are negligible. The purists are in danger of disappearing up their own proverbials. I read forum post after forum post, both here and elsewhere where perfectly convincing images are nit picked into oblivion. The principle however that we should point out where improvements could be made is good, what we should recognise and appreciate are the incredible strides that have been made in this type of software whether it is AR3 or Vray. I remember a time when radiosity was impossible. For me Vray edges AR3 in that in Vray I have a set of tools more likely to produce predicable results, with very affordable render times. Having said that I know as fact, that in more talented hands someone working with AR3 would produce better results then me every time. Where I do think a big negative lies is in the manuals - they need to deal more with the why then the simple how... :rolleyes:

[LemonNado]

The second post to the original statement says it all.

IMHO it's all about: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

In my case... AR3 always delivered what I wanted. As did FR2 and Maxwell and FryRender, and VRay.

[ahven]

I still think AR 3 rendering result is much better now it´s just you first got to learn how to use it. Not except to get same results from AR like from vrayforc4d which is a renderer with a long development history deriving already from chaosgroup and 3d max . Most images are not that good with one pass and you can try to render several channels out: AO pass, shadow pass, reflection pass etc. to make it shine. You got to try the new picture viewer too :love:

Why not also combine both engines to make it ultra super shine :arteest:
For example: AR 3: AO pass and Vrayforc4d main render

[ahven]

I use VRay and love it. However, there is a lot to be said for AR3. It can produce some great results. I recently did an animation using AR3 and I wouldn't have considered using VRay because AR3 produces flicker-free GI pretty much straight out of the box. You can achieve this in VRay but believe me there is a hell of a lot more setting up and testing to be done.

For comparable results check out this site: http://amscenes.com/

AR3 is pretty close in my opinion.
One of my clients is animation studio. The animator said AR is the choice over third party.
No tweaking too much like with vray. It´s still the customers decision at the end.

This is free btw:
http://amscenes.com/product.php?id_product=15

[ahven]

One button solution for LWF in Vray 1.2 me like very much. I must say DeGamma and AR3 are great but there is something about Vray, something not quite quantifiable, that makes it my preferred renderer, and so I am hanging out for the update for 11.5 compatibility.

all the best

Richard
You are propably talking about this?

http://www.thirdpartyplugins.com/degamma/

[Shademaster]

Hey guys, why don't we all join the Lighting challenge (indoor by the way)?

Free scene made by David Tousek (no materials), some very good tips and tricks by Jeremy Brin:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=185&t=829311

Here's my current entry (no materials yet):

http://www.c4real.eu/daan/bedroom_c4real_v02.jpg

AR3 and LWF.

Good luck everyone! :buttrock:

[ThirdEye]

Shademaster: fantastic result!

[lllab]

nice result shademaster.

a few critics though, to me there is way too much AO look into that scene that makes it look unrealistic. i am not sure you used AO, i only mean it has AO look.

the outdoor image looks a bit unrelastic dark i think, for te light that comes through the window....

the lightsetup is very nice:-)

cheers
stefan

[Shademaster]

nice result shademaster.

a few critics though, to me there is way too much AO look into that scene that makes it look unrealistic. i am not sure you used AO, i only mean it has AO look.

the outdoor image looks a bit unrelastic dark i think, for te light that comes through the window....

the lightsetup is very nice:-)

cheers
stefan

Hey Stefan thank you very much, thank you too Alberto!

I darkened the shadows on purpose to get the details to pop a bit more. I used a very lowres Irradiance map together with Details enhancement (QMC) to get defined corners and crevices. I used only 2 bounces, maybe with 3 the shadows will have a more filled out look. I also boosted the outdoor image by 3 stops within the GI pass so it is unrealistically bright in comparison to the image the camera sees. Funny you spotted that :) .

I wanted to avoid the flat look so I am not sure a 3 bounce will look pleasing. I started texturing now so I'll see how it turns out after that!

Thanks for the comments guys.
:beer:

[brasco]

That's some seriously sexy lighting! I really don't think you need to change it much at all.

Look forward to seeing it materialed up

brasc :)

[51M0N]

Indeed great result. It may not be absolute realistic like Stefan said, but it's lovely. Are the rules to go for realism alone?
Looking forward for more.

[Xcut0r]

just to c4d community know.. also on that challenge :)


here's my entry, still with lots of tweaks to do:

3min with GI+QMC 2 bounces.
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4608/03pos.jpg

[Martin Kay]

Haha! Funny thread is funny.

If you know your workflow you could easily bump AR3 up to Vray spec image wise. It all depends on your view of things and how you approach certain problems.

I haven't seen any evidence that people are generally getting any better renders out of vray than they are from AR3... That tree and bush render a few posts ago wasn't very good- I bet it could be done better in AR3- but really it depends who's pulling the levers and pushing the buttons...
I've seen some good stuff out of AR3 and some pretty poor stuff from Vray. I really think it depends on the user.

Martin K

[dann_stubbs]

I haven't seen any evidence that people are generally getting any better renders out of vray than they are from AR3... That tree and bush render a few posts ago wasn't very good- I bet it could be done better in AR3- but really it depends who's pulling the levers and pushing the buttons...
I've seen some good stuff out of AR3 and some pretty poor stuff from Vray. I really think it depends on the user.

Martin K


i see a lot of great work being rendered. both in AR3 and in VRAY - sadly most of the amazing work is not really fodder for forums and i think unless you know it was done in C4D you probably don't assume it was (or you may not even know it was CG!)

but what i tend to notice most is the great architecture work i see done is predominately done in VRAY.

that says either that VRAY is better for arch work - OR the more talented users are choosing VRAY for their projects.

so that makes me think that these talented arch users - the ones with the most experience and skill and making these incredible renders are choosing VRAY for a reason.

i don't underestimate their reasons for their choice...

VRAY is an awesome product and nearly every day i think about how thankful i am that stefan (and renato and daniel) put the effort into creating it for us C4D users. Maxon should be appreciative of it too.. it really helped push C4D to a new level. (and a different need of users too)

i still like AR a lot - it's complete integration of course is the best - but maxon seems spread a bit thin the past few years - new checklist features seem priority over the old way of stability and bug fixes (IMHO) yes we've had some amazing new features and tools - hair, mograph etc... (though often at a pricey cost) and i understand why that is the way it is - but can't say it makes me think all great things of the new way... the fact that we still drag around the corpse of dynamics says a lot... not much good...

VRAY is a very welcome and extremely capable addition to C4D. the GI in it is still a better solution then in AR too from what i've found. (though give credit that AR3 made leaps in it's GI recently)

dann

[Martin Kay]

i see a lot of great work being rendered. both in AR3 and in VRAY - sadly most of the amazing work is not really fodder for forums and i think unless you know it was done in C4D you probably don't assume it was (or you may not even know it was CG!)

but what i tend to notice most is the great architecture work i see done is predominately done in VRAY.

that says either that VRAY is better for arch work - OR the more talented users are choosing VRAY for their projects.

so that makes me think that these talented arch users - the ones with the most experience and skill and making these incredible renders are choosing VRAY for a reason.

i don't underestimate their reasons for their choice...

VRAY is an awesome product and nearly every day i think about how thankful i am that stefan (and renato and daniel) put the effort into creating it for us C4D users. Maxon should be appreciative of it too.. it really helped push C4D to a new level. (and a different need of users too)

i still like AR a lot - it's complete integration of course is the best - but maxon seems spread a bit thin the past few years - new checklist features seem priority over the old way of stability and bug fixes (IMHO) yes we've had some amazing new features and tools - hair, mograph etc... (though often at a pricey cost) and i understand why that is the way it is - but can't say it makes me think all great things of the new way... the fact that we still drag around the corpse of dynamics says a lot... not much good...

VRAY is a very welcome and extremely capable addition to C4D. the GI in it is still a better solution then in AR too from what i've found. (though give credit that AR3 made leaps in it's GI recently)

dann

Probably most (not all) architects are using Max, and Vray has been available for a long time as a natural partner to Max. I suspect Vray is 'better' than AR3, although I haven't tried it. I've no real reason for saying that other than the fact that Vray is more expensive than the AR module and that previous incarnations of AR were pretty naff or just plain impractical to use. However I've done quite a bit of stuff with the 11 and 11.5 demo and I'm impressed with the speed and total ease of use.
(thankyou Maxon for putting out a useable demo)
I must think its pretty good because as an old owner of Vs8.5 XL, I'm shelling out £3171 plus for the priviledge of being current with a Studio package. I could have bought into Max and a subscription very nearly at that price.
Looking at some of the AR3/Vray comparisons that have been put up its very obvious to me that the end result is very much in the hands of the user and at how well they are able to master/leverage the very capable lighting tools in c4d.
Martin K

[pwhittaker]

... the very capable lighting tools in c4d.
Martin K

No IES support in AR sucks. That is all.

[ThePriest]

No IES support in AR sucks. That is all.

There are plugins that provide a solution.

[Neil V]

Do you have links to any of these? I'd be interested in taking a look.

There are plugins that provide a solution.

[ThePriest]

http://www.blackstar-solutions.de/index.php?id=51

[ediris]

No IES support in AR sucks. That is all.
You always have an option http://www.blackstar-solutions.de/index.php?id=51
Vray is pretty fast and solid specially their AO and GI.
The only thing stopping me from using Vray must of the times is the lack of tutorials for such a complex plug in there should be something similar to Samir DPIT Effex video tutorials or
Paul Seshi great library of tutorials.

Edgard

[Neil V]

There are a wealth of tutorials and sample files provided on the official VRay for C4D forum: http://www.vrayforc4d.com/forum/

Or here: http://www.vrayc4d.com/

And if that's not enough just follow any VRay tutorial for Max as they are easily transferrable.

You always have an option http://www.blackstar-solutions.de/index.php?id=51
Vray is pretty fast and solid specially their AO and GI.
The only thing stopping me from using Vray must of the times is the lack of tutorials for such a complex plug in there should be something similar to Samir DPIT Effex video tutorials or
Paul Seshi great library of tutorials.

Edgard

[paulselhi]

Vray in MAX has the single most important advantage over AR3 and Vray for C4D and that is true distributed rendering and that includes single frame rendering where ALL clients share the burden of the lightcache calculation and contribute IR calculation buckets and final render buckets at the same time. So much easier than net render and tile rendering'

AFAIK you can have unlimited clients so 10 I7's will give you 80 buckets chugging away at the same time

[dann_stubbs]

Vray in MAX has the single most important advantage over AR3 and Vray for C4D and that is true distributed rendering and that includes single frame rendering where ALL clients share the burden of the lightcache calculation and contribute IR calculation buckets and final render buckets at the same time. So much easier than net render and tile rendering'

AFAIK you can have unlimited clients so 10 I7's will give you 80 buckets chugging away at the same time

yes that is something i would love to see... but don't be completely fooled by the "sales pitch" of it

there are diminishing returns with any network rendering and the data transfer and overhead of managing the distributed render... it would depend on the scene and the network of course but it would start to be slower then faster at some point of too many render clients contributing...

but of course not too many may be in the situation of having that negative to the distributed network solution. : )

dann

[paulselhi]

Most motherboards these days have GB speed neiwork capabilities and a GB speed switch is fairly inexpensive, you just have to rember to upgrade your cables as standard cat5 is not designed for GB speed networking, Of course a dedicated netwok raid storage setup is also recommended

whoops.. forgot who i was responding too.. grandmas and eggs !!!

[dann_stubbs]

Most motherboards these days have GB speed neiwork capabilities and a GB speed switch is fairly inexpensive, you just have to rember to upgrade your cables as standard cat5 is not designed for GB speed networking, Of course a dedicated netwok raid storage setup is also recommended


i guess i should/could have simplified my comment...

yes GB ethernet is important...

but basically if you have a frame that takes 100 hours on computer X - having 100 computer X may not mean a 1/100 render time

there will be a point of diminishing returns is all as the overhead takes over the actual rendering processing.

probably anywhere from 2-8 computers would be great and awesome return on a distributed frame rendering. maybe more maybe less depending on scene...

still would like to see that feature pop up in C4D sooner rather then later : )

dann

[lllab]

DR is certainly a nice feature that will also come, in a free update, to vrayforc4d. when ready and fully working. also a RT engine, that can render stills over network and GPUs.

Dann is also right, that also gigabit network will have a bottle neck somewhere. with gigabit you can normally render about 6-8 nodes efficiently. best is to have as many core per node.

best greetings
Stefan
vrayforc4d

[paulselhi]

8 nodes at 64 threads/buckets would be..pleasant. Above 10 nodes and i would think that you would need Windows server

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.