More teasing from Arnold?

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 Display Modes
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by uglykids: I really don't get how people can reasonably compare two completely different applications. Be it featurewise and price related.. makes no sense to me at all so I won't comment on that anymore..


Because in the end, they're renderers. In spite of the details on how, as long as they create a set of standards that's expected from renderers, you can compare them.
__________________
2014 Reel
Company website
Behance Portfolio
HyperactiveVR
I reject your reality and substitute my own
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by Troyan: Because in the end, they're renderers. In spite of the details on how, as long as they create a set of standards that's expected from renderers, you can compare them.


Sure but I don't think Arnold is used by an increasingly amount of big studios if the price is the only difference. It just doesn't target the same audience.

Last edited by Edo75 : 04 April 2015 at 06:59 PM.
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by FantaBurky: Yeah, strange to compare Octane and Arnold. Even overlooking the fact that Octane is not fully production ready yet (missing features, some kinks to be ironed out still),


What's missing in Octane?
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by Edo75: Sure but I don't think Arnold is used by an increasingly amount of big studios if the price is the only difference. It just doesn't target the same audience.


I think mainly because of how they were developed. Wasn't Arnold originally developed as an in-house renderer at a large studio? I might be wrong about this.

What do you mean by "doesn't target the same audience". A tool is a tool. They're both renderers. If Octane supported the CPU and GPU, why wouldn't large studios use it?
__________________
2014 Reel
Company website
Behance Portfolio
HyperactiveVR
I reject your reality and substitute my own
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by Troyan: What do you mean by "doesn't target the same audience". A tool is a tool. They're both renderers. If Octane supported the CPU and GPU, why wouldn't large studios use it?


I mean for large scale VFX studios with a specific pipeline, probably not for hobbyists or one-man band motion designer IMO.
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by zeden: What's missing in Octane?

They don't even have fully functional Object/Material ID's to begin with. Which is a pretty basic need in compositing. The mattes are sort of limited as well, you have to re-render a scene at least two times since you can only assign an object to one single layer mask at a time. Many times in compositing you need to isolate groups of objects + individual objects in the same shot. Also still missing shadow pass (unless you use Render Layer, which you normally wouldn't in a non-vfx shot), if I'm not mistaken.

Not to mention support for Volumetric rendering, which, yes, I know they've announced for 3.0. But that's at the end of the year, and considering the amount of kinks they still have in 2.0, which has been out for a year now, I wouldn't expect all 3.0 features to work right out of the box. So going by their current pace, you are looking at waiting 1-3 years until it's stable and fully functional. By that time Arnold will probably utilize GPUs as well and still have the added benefit of having been used by numerous studios on a bunch of feature films/television, constantly being further advanced by requests of some of the most talented people in our industry.

I'm not saying Octane is bad. It's actually really neat and very useful for most freelancer/hobbyists on a limited budget (not speaking about the cost for software, but hardware!!). If you own a small renderfarm of CPUs though (as most serious artists/studios do, since GPU rendering is relatively new) there's really is no better render engine than Arnold (or Renderman, as uglykids mentioned), cause Arnold provides state-of-the-art technology, at a better quality-speed than any other CPU renderer out there.

Another thing worth considering is what updates cost? Octane 3.0 will probably cost close to what you purchased 2.0 for. Not sure how much Arnold charges.
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by mitchino: I didn't think vary did support that function as well as the native renderer - has this changed recently? I think the last time I used a machine with vray it was version 1.2


Whoops, I misread you; I thought we were talking about Include/Exclude lists on lights ("read the whole post before replying, stupid! ").

Could you be more specific about what sort of include/exclude functionality on the compositing tag you're looking for?
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by FantaBurky: They don't even have fully functional Object/Material ID's to begin with. Which is a pretty basic need in compositing.

Another thing worth considering is what updates cost? Octane 3.0 will probably cost close to what you purchased 2.0 for. Not sure how much Arnold charges.


It's down to what works in any given situation. I have four broadcast commercials on the air right now for which I used Octane inside C4D. Product shots. Automotive. That sort of thing. Works great for that. Clearly Arnold is much better suited in other cases.

From the business side of things, I suppose Solid Angle have been working out the pricing sweet spot to maximize seat sales, spread their user base, and earn the highest valuation possible. We shall soon see what they have in mind. (Depending on how you define "soon" - a word that has been thrown around a lot lately!)
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by LukeLetellier: Could you be more specific about what sort of include/exclude functionality on the compositing tag you're looking for?


The ability to have objects included/excluded from each other, for example, have an object reflect in one object but not another, have an object cast a shadow on one object but not another etc etc.
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by rwalker: I have four broadcast commercials on the air right now for which I used Octane inside C4D


Can we see these? Any links?
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by rwalker: Clearly Arnold is much better suited in other cases.

How is it clearly? For small/big studios or freelancers who have already invested in a small/big CPU renderfarm, or need any of the things I mentioned above (most importantly stability, which Octane currently lacks), Arnold is definitely the best (other than Renderman) choice.

That said, I've already mentioned Octane being a great choice for an individual (who doesn't own a small renderfarm of CPUs) on a tight budget. I'd say even for smaller studios, but they've most likely already invested in a small CPU renderfarm, in which case there's no point in using Octane. Usually those who are on a tight budget are also not the ones creating the advanced stuff where they'd actually use all the things Arnold has to offer, so again, Octane is a perfectly fine choice (if you can live with the occasional crash, missing or lacking features etc.). One great thing about Octane is it's team and the C4D plugin developer seem to be very willing to listen to their customers and try to fix problems as soon as possible. And in 1-3 years it will probably be 100% production ready as well.

I'm also interested in seeing what the commercials you've done look like.
 
  04 April 2015
[QUOTE=I'm also interested in seeing what the commercials you've done look like.[/QUOTE]

I'll see if I can get permission to post something.

Last edited by rwalker : 04 April 2015 at 05:09 PM.
 
  04 April 2015
Originally Posted by FantaBurky: They don't even have fully functional Object/Material ID's to begin with. Which is a pretty basic need in compositing. The mattes are sort of limited as well, you have to re-render a scene at least two times since you can only assign an object to one single layer mask at a time. Many times in compositing you need to isolate groups of objects + individual objects in the same shot. Also still missing shadow pass (unless you use Render Layer, which you normally wouldn't in a non-vfx shot), if I'm not mistaken.

Not to mention support for Volumetric rendering, which, yes, I know they've announced for 3.0. But that's at the end of the year, and considering the amount of kinks they still have in 2.0, which has been out for a year now, I wouldn't expect all 3.0 features to work right out of the box. So going by their current pace, you are looking at waiting 1-3 years until it's stable and fully functional. By that time Arnold will probably utilize GPUs as well and still have the added benefit of having been used by numerous studios on a bunch of feature films/television, constantly being further advanced by requests of some of the most talented people in our industry.

I'm not saying Octane is bad. It's actually really neat and very useful for most freelancer/hobbyists on a limited budget (not speaking about the cost for software, but hardware!!). If you own a small renderfarm of CPUs though (as most serious artists/studios do, since GPU rendering is relatively new) there's really is no better render engine than Arnold (or Renderman, as uglykids mentioned), cause Arnold provides state-of-the-art technology, at a better quality-speed than any other CPU renderer out there.

Another thing worth considering is what updates cost? Octane 3.0 will probably cost close to what you purchased 2.0 for. Not sure how much Arnold charges.



I find it interesting that someone would compare yet-to-even ship software (Arnold) with a mature renderer like Octane.

Octane has 99% of the feature set anyone would want and the rendering is much faster than any CPU renderer. The c4D version has been battle tested for several years. V3 will ship with a host of first-class features that no other renderer features. You can read about it here:
http://home.otoy.com/render/octane-...t-gpu-renderer/

Unlike the disinformation some have put forth in this thread, (e.g. "1-3 year until Octane 3 ships"), Otoy has projected a release in the second half release of 2015. From my experience Otoy has shipped close to their projected dates in the past. V3 is very ambitious and deliverables might slide a few months. But it wouldn't surprise me if Otoy met it's target dates.

As per the FUD comments about stability...I don't find that to be the case at all. I can think of maybe twice it's crashed on me.

In the spirit of full disclosure I am an Octane customer, but I also use VRAY and have experimented with other renderers like Thea. I'm no fanboy and I have no particular allegiance. I just like seeing the facts fairly represented.

I give the folks at Solid Angle their due. Great stuff. But in regards to the c4d version it's been repeatedly hyped and promised going back to last July. We are coming up on a year of delays. If you want to budget for Arnold on your primary machine and say...two slave render machines...you'll need to budget $4,000...as no render nodes are included nor sold...and that's before maintenance fees. https://www.solidangle.com/arnold/pricing/

Again, I give them their due...they have a great (if somewhat slow) renderer and have won a prominent place in Hollywood. Arnold can produce stunning renders... as can Octane.

In case anyone wonders that Otoy is a lightweight not intent on winning this battle...check out their board of directors: former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, former IBM CEO Sam Palmisano and other industry studs.

If and when Arnold does make its way to the party with it's 1.0 version... it will be a great day for the C4D community. As with most software...version 1 usually isn't the time to invest... Lots of kinks and missing features. But in time this will get interesting. The more competition the better.
__________________
C4D R19 Studio, MODO 902, VRAY, Octane, Cycles. PC/Mac.

Last edited by IceCaveMan : 04 April 2015 at 05:07 AM.
 
  04 April 2015
your constant efforts on praising Octane to be better than Arnold (talking about double standards here: you are making the same mistake by judging it without even have it tested ) get boring lately.. ( c4dcafe etc... I give you your due for not getting tired)

btw, Arnold has been used in production longer than Octane, "yet to be released" is no argument here as you get what the other available Arnold Bridges offer. Plus some neat features that are C4D specific..

Regarding Pricing I made my point, some get it, some won't..

"anyone would want", well nothing to say here, reality speaks for itself

C4DtoA was announced in August last year, with a time frame for "release" in Q4 14, which was internally meant to be closed beta afaik. Don't know where you get your "facts" though..

Same goes for Arnold being slow.. again claiming without even testing it??

I know a good few users, that already invested in C4DtoA and didn't regret it, so even pre 1.0 delivered happiness to those who are more unbiased.
__________________
.::www.uglykids.org::.
 
  04 April 2015
I guess opinions are like renderers these days... everyone claims to be unbiased, yet good or bad, a little bit of "bias" leads to much quicker results and conclusions...
 
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 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.