Solid Angle Arnold goes live - C4DtoA Information Thread

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01 January 2014   #61
Originally Posted by fluffouille: Very nice, thanks for the screenshot.

Do you plan on supporting antialiased Object ID passes as well?


surely, everything that is possible
 
Old 02 February 2014   #62
This is really really awesome, having Arnold integrated with cinema 4d is something that I didn't even expect would ever happen.

Anyways, I had a question, apologies in advance if the answer is very obvious. In Vray when rendering out animation sequences with GI, the noise is not consistent from one frame to the next, unless of course the brute force engine is used. But that is very time consuming compared to IR. Which means we have to jump through a number of hoops to render out animations, for example denoising the illumination pass and whatnot. But I am assuming, since Arnold is a physically based Monte Carlo path-tracer, it doesn't suffer from that same issue. So am I right in assuming that?
 
Old 02 February 2014   #63
Originally Posted by KingOzymandias: This is really really awesome, having Arnold integrated with cinema 4d is something that I didn't even expect would ever happen.

Anyways, I had a question, apologies in advance if the answer is very obvious. In Vray when rendering out animation sequences with GI, the noise is not consistent from one frame to the next, unless of course the brute force engine is used. But that is very time consuming compared to IR. Which means we have to jump through a number of hoops to render out animations, for example denoising the illumination pass and whatnot. But I am assuming, since Arnold is a physically based Monte Carlo path-tracer, it doesn't suffer from that same issue. So am I right in assuming that?


I am not sure what you mean be the term "noise" in this connection.
All I can say is that Arnold doesn't produce any jittering in illumination due to the way GI is calculated. It doesn't need prepasses/ lightcaches etc.

So GI just works flawlessly no matter the scene complexity.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #64
Originally Posted by KingOzymandias: In Vray when rendering out animation sequences with GI, the noise is not consistent from one frame to the next, unless of course the brute force engine is used. But that is very time consuming compared to IR.


The 'noise' you refer to with interpolated methods like Vray's IR is more commonly referred to as 'flickering', which is inherent to these types of approximations. Using brute force in Vray makes it much more like Arnold, simpler to setup and no flickering issues. You simply balance the amount of 'grain' versus render time. Grain is far more acceptable than flicker in any case. The fact that Arnold has been optimised from the ground up for this kind of brute force rendering means it's render times are very acceptable.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #65
Thanks for the clarification. Seems like Arnold really is the answer to my problems.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #66
Some small update: Animation Test, GI, SSS Balls, Motion Blur and Volume scattering.

MP4



more skin shader tests with textures:






Last edited by uglykids : 02 February 2014 at 01:20 PM.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #67
Hi Daniel,
If I'm right you also use Maxwell for rendering. Do you have an speed comparison between Arnold vs Maxwell for that bouncing balls scene? It would be interesting to see the speed difference between both softwares in interiors scenes like that.

Thanks,
José
 
Old 02 February 2014   #68
Originally Posted by jespizua: Hi Daniel,
If I'm right you also use Maxwell for rendering. Do you have an speed comparison between Arnold vs Maxwell for that bouncing balls scene? It would be interesting to see the speed difference between both softwares in interiors scenes like that.

Thanks,
José


Well, I am not sure if I can translate all the values correctly to render in Maxwell the same way so it can be comparable visually and technically. You wouldn't compare them as Maxwell Render does a whole lot more complex calculations to stay 100 percent physically accurate whereas you can specify and limit certain calculations in Arnold to speed up things.

Anyways, my intention is not to promote Arnold here, as its reputation speaks for itself I believe. I am just keeping you updated on the progress of the C4DtoA plugin.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #69
Originally Posted by uglykids: Well, I am not sure if I can translate all the values correctly to render in Maxwell the same way so it can be comparable visually and technically. You wouldn't compare them as Maxwell Render does a whole lot more complex calculations to stay 100 percent physically accurate whereas you can specify and limit certain calculations in Arnold to speed up things.

Anyways, my intention is not to promote Arnold here, as its reputation speaks for itself I believe. I am just keeping you updated on the progress of the C4DtoA plugin.


Thanks for your insights. I just keep hearing about Arnold everywhere and I felt a bit of curiosity about how does it compare to Maxwell.

Cheers,
José
 
Old 02 February 2014   #70
Originally Posted by jespizua: Thanks for your insights. I just keep hearing about Arnold everywhere and I felt a bit of curiosity about how does it compare to Maxwell.

Cheers,
José


Well I'd consider Arnold to be pretty similiar to Maxwell considering the workflow and its physical/brute force based approach to solve things. Yet you can control much more regarding sampling and ray depth without loosing the peace of mind on GI caching algorithms etc.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #71
That animation test is really nice, looks like you guys are about to wrap it up!
__________________
Twitter | Ratata
 
Old 02 February 2014   #72
Originally Posted by sandidolsak: That animation test is really nice, looks like you guys are about to wrap it up!

Thanks for the comment I thought it was a rather technical example to show its flicker free, even with raytraced sss contributing to the GI and Scattering etc. There are a few fireflies now and then, I am checking if these can be resolved by raising the sampling.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #73
hard to notice the fireflies, btw is there an option similar "Identical Noise Distribution" turned on like in c4d renderer? looking at the walls, it seems pretty static, or is it texture maybe? or simply a result of compressing the file?
__________________
Twitter | Ratata
 
Old 02 February 2014   #74
Originally Posted by sandidolsak: hard to notice the fireflies, btw is there an option similar "Identical Noise Distribution" turned on like in c4d renderer? looking at the walls, it seems pretty static, or is it texture maybe? or simply a result of compressing the file?


There are 8 different AA patterns to choose from. Used on the clip was multi-jittered.
 
Old 02 February 2014   #75
Update on the Texturepicker for all possible attributes:





And a second Bounce Clip with pure emissive balls with a noise as opacity map:



Clip MP4

DOF Comparison Arnold



And Cinema 4D Physical, (tried to match lighting and colors but still some workflow differences with linear light and exposure intensities etc.)


Last edited by uglykids : 02 February 2014 at 04:27 PM.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.