CGTalk > Software > Maxon Cinema 4D
Login register
reply share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-16-2017, 09:21 PM   #16
Blinny
Molded By the Dark
 
Blinny's Avatar
portfolio
Blinny
CAD, Motion, Freelance
USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Mole
Still, there's no need to bring X-Particles into it. I know he has a personal gripe with Insydium. That was just a cheap shot.


Agree 100%.

Threads like this are indicative that stronger moderation habits are needed around here. Was he intending to take a shot at Cycles4D and not XP? Because his post reads like he's never used XP / doesn't know what it is. But even that would be a stupid argument because Cycles4D is a very young, 1.0 product.

Even if someone else brought XP up (in a positive light I might add) there's no logical reason to compare it (or Cycles4D) and then tell us how 'my friend' won't buy Insydium stuff. Just f-ing petty. Nothing like trying to smear the competition because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Last edited by Blinny : 04-16-2017 at 09:27 PM.
 
Old 04-16-2017, 09:32 PM   #17
vertigoz
PRO
Nuno Costa
conceptual
Arazede, Portugal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 83
Indigo

You'll always have Indigo!
 
Old 04-16-2017, 11:05 PM   #18
tryan
Explorer
portfolio
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5
Quick question about Vray--I've been using, and loving, vray for maya. Absolutelyy love it. Having said this, Arnold for c4d looks great. I've watched some tutorials about it and it appears to be a pleasure to work with, and the results look stunning.

What do you feel about the future of vrayforc4d? The current version (3.4 I believe) is not on par with vray for maya, but still (from the research that I've done) Arnold seems to be quite a bit slower than vrayforc4d.

I guess I'm asking because I hate exporting my Cinema files to maya for rendering, yet I don't feel enough confidence in the developres to spend however much for vrayforc4d. I don't really have a massive hardware setup for Arnold (just the 5960 8-core cpu).

Why have you chosen Arnold over vrayforc4d (I'm assuming you have)? I'm not looking for an agry debate about vray vs. Arnold. But if you HAD to decide between Arnold or Vray what would you choose and why?

Thanks.
 
Old 04-16-2017, 11:47 PM   #19
luisRiera
Expert
portfolio
luis Riera
Graphics designer
America Television
Lima, Peru
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryan
Why have you chosen Arnold over vrayforc4d (I'm assuming you have)? I'm not looking for an agry debate about vray vs. Arnold. But if you HAD to decide between Arnold or Vray what would you choose and why?
Thanks.


The moment Arnold is the main render of two of the biggest 3D animation packages in the industry, for me at least, this discussion is over. If you are planning to work for production or into a bigger pipeline, then you need to learn and work with Arnold, and that really is really great news, because now you can work in your own 3D app of choice and the quality of your images will match your coworkers that are using Maya or 3DS Max.

Of course you can go for a GPU solution if you are a one man studio ( I use Arnold at work and Redshift at home )
__________________
C4D / Zbrush / XSI / Xpression
facebook page
 
Old 04-17-2017, 03:16 AM   #20
IceCaveMan
Expert
portfolio
Craig Wall
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryan
Quick question about Vray--I've been using, and loving, vray for maya. Absolutelyy love it. Having said this, Arnold for c4d looks great. I've watched some tutorials about it and it appears to be a pleasure to work with, and the results look stunning.

What do you feel about the future of vrayforc4d? The current version (3.4 I believe) is not on par with vray for maya, but still (from the research that I've done) Arnold seems to be quite a bit slower than vrayforc4d.

I guess I'm asking because I hate exporting my Cinema files to maya for rendering, yet I don't feel enough confidence in the developres to spend however much for vrayforc4d. I don't really have a massive hardware setup for Arnold (just the 5960 8-core cpu).

Why have you chosen Arnold over vrayforc4d (I'm assuming you have)? I'm not looking for an agry debate about vray vs. Arnold. But if you HAD to decide between Arnold or Vray what would you choose and why?

Thanks.


Vray is affordable...comes w/5 rendering nodes. You don't get gouged w/annual fees and such. It has a GPU-based IPR and it does complete final rendering jobs faster than Arnold. The c4d version has lagged behind a bit and I don't see that changing. They will have a new update "pretty soon" but even that will not bring it to full 3.5 Max parity. Production-GPU rendering is a work in progress, but it's pretty nimble for a CPU renderer. It's most definitely full-featured and obviously has super quality.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 03:18 AM   #21
lancemoody
PRO
portfolio
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 90
Yeah, that lagging behind thing puts VRAY in the never try/never buy category for me.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 03:20 AM   #22
IceCaveMan
Expert
portfolio
Craig Wall
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisRiera
The moment Arnold is the main render of two of the biggest 3D animation packages in the industry, for me at least, this discussion is over. If you are planning to work for production or into a bigger pipeline, then you need to learn and work with Arnold, and that really is really great news, because now you can work in your own 3D app of choice and the quality of your images will match your coworkers that are using Maya or 3DS Max.

Of course you can go for a GPU solution if you are a one man studio ( I use Arnold at work and Redshift at home )



From what I see at shows like NAB...which I attended last year...the top c4d artists generally all use third-party renderers. Arnold is used by a number. Octane is probably used by the most.

It will be interesting to take notes again this year.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 03:37 AM   #23
IceCaveMan
Expert
portfolio
Craig Wall
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancemoody
Yeah, that lagging behind thing puts VRAY in the never try/never buy category for me.


Yes I understand. The c4d version got spun off by VRAY years ago to an independent development team. Chaos didn't seen interested in c4d, so at the time that was a happy development. Over the years the necessity to make things work in c4d without close ties to the mother ship, caused the product to deviate a bit.

In recent years the c4d team has worked to get their core code more in line with ChaosGroup, but they forever seem to be a year--or more--behind.

VRAY on c4d seriously does have a lot going for it, but a number of Mac users have become disillusioned with the development delays and such.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 11:47 AM   #24
tryan
Explorer
portfolio
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5
I just did a quick comparison render between Arnold (trial) and vrayfor maya (I know it's not exactly vrayforc4d but I have to believe it gives ballpark-same results as vraforc4d). My first render was a simple shiny plastic ball in a studio setup.

vray: 1m23sec.
arnold: 3m15sec.

Obviously I am not an arnold power user, and I based my arnold settings on some tutorials. The 3+minutes were necessary for a noise-free render.

Next test: a robotic squid creature with 2-million polygons and around 5600 objects. I used a brushed metal material.

vray: 6min41sec.
arnold: 5min21sec.

I was quite surprised by this.

Now, this was by no means a scientific test, but rather a quicky to get a rough idea of the differences.

My takewaway: I was delighted how easy and intuitive Arnold was to use. The Arnold IPR was much more responsive, and material building was much simpler. I have read that they have tweaked the quad light sampling in Arnold, therefore reducing render times. Seems so.

Also another great plus for Arnold: node based material editor. I LOVE this in vray for maya, and just don't have patience for Cinema's material editor. (Try loading 60-100 bitmaps from Painter into a Cinema, or vrayforc4d, material. Not fun.)

Anyhow, much to think about and consider. Shoot, if Chaos Group took back vrayforc4d then there really would not be any trepidition on my part. The Chaos Group devs are awesome (and their support equally so.)

Cheers.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 12:56 PM   #25
vel0city
PRO
portfolio
velocity
uk, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 137
@tryan - is the Arnold demo you tried using the latest Arnold core, 5.0? It's completely overhauled including rendering speed, worth checking if it's the latest version.

And be careful with Youtube Arnold tutorials. Most of them completely miss the point of Arnold's energy conservation/physically accurate shaders and will lead you down a path that you will have to unlearn. As a guide, your diffuse, spec, transmission, coat, sss, emission values all need to be the sum of one (or below). So if your diff is .5, your spec can be .3 and your coat will then be .2 - anything above that goes against the recommended workflow for shaders.

Any tutorials where they use a value of 1 on the diffuse, then 1 on the specular is wrong and will give unpredictable results, including noise and increased render times, as well as your shaders falling apart if you change the lighting.

You will also see a speed boost if you follow the correct way of using bitmaps in your textures by converting them to .tx format in Arnold's Asset/Tx manager, including your hdri and exr files.

Also be aware that Arnold can take care of all of your sub-d at render time, so no need for C4D's hyper nurbs/sub d surfaces, Arnold's sub-d workflow is way more efficient and lighter on your viewport of course. Just add an Arnold tag to your object and the sub-d options will appear, you also work on your displacement settings here.

Also I recommend investigating Arnold's procedural .ASS workflow for taking over where C4D's standard cloned objects would hang the app, and also look into volume rendering with X-Particles, TFD and open VDB volumes. Loads of fun and the results are stunning. The particle mesh tag and mesh light tag are cool as well.

Enjoy this world-class renderer, it's a really stunning piece of software.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 02:56 PM   #26
luisRiera
Expert
portfolio
luis Riera
Graphics designer
America Television
Lima, Peru
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by vel0city
Also I recommend investigating Arnold's procedural .ASS workflow for taking over where C4D's standard cloned objects would hang the app, and also look into volume rendering with X-Particles, TFD and open VDB volumes. Loads of fun and the results are stunning. The particle mesh tag and mesh light tag are cool as well.

Enjoy this world-class renderer, it's a really stunning piece of software.


Can you recommend a workflow for x-particles? right now what I do is just render in Arnold everything except xparticles in a separate Take (thanks Maxon for Takes!), and then composite everything in After. The reason I do that is because while Arnold can see the display color of the xpMaterial / xpEmitter, it cant see it when working with the xpTracer object, and I cant seem to find a way to use the xparticles render "blend Add" setting (color accum in Maya) to enhance the look of my particles.
__________________
C4D / Zbrush / XSI / Xpression
facebook page
 
Old 04-17-2017, 06:00 PM   #27
skeebertus
PRO
portfolio
S.A.Skeebert
USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by uglykids
Never did anybody state that 5.0 will have GPU support nor is it certain that GPU will be coming at all..


If Arnold's rendering core isn't a 1 million lines-of-code monster algorithm full of crazily forking code, porting to GPU shouldn't be a big deal.

Programmable GPU cores don't work that differently from CPU cores.

GPUs right now are advancing rapidly - if you stay on CPU, you may find that GPU renderers one day run circles around you in terms of raw rendering speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uglykids
The 5.0 update is completely "solid" which I greatly respect and demand from this state of the art renderer


Except that Arnold is now owned by Autodesk - easily the most reviled company in the CG field.

This the company that killed Softimage XSI for no good reason, took away the option to buy perpetual licenses of their software for no good reason and also wants everything to be hooked "into the cloud" in the future for no good reason.

I'm so glad Bforartists is being developed. Blender is, for me, now becoming a serious contender for a free, open source & actually usable 3D software.

I'd rather put up with the challenges of using open source tools than tie myself to a CG software manufacturer that only cares about making maximum monetary return.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 07:06 PM   #28
vel0city
PRO
portfolio
velocity
uk, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisRiera
Can you recommend a workflow for x-particles? right now what I do is just render in Arnold everything except xparticles in a separate Take (thanks Maxon for Takes!), and then composite everything in After. The reason I do that is because while Arnold can see the display color of the xpMaterial / xpEmitter, it cant see it when working with the xpTracer object, and I cant seem to find a way to use the xparticles render "blend Add" setting (color accum in Maya) to enhance the look of my particles.


If you add an Arnold tag to your XP emitter and XP trail, you'll be able to add any Arnold shader to the emitted particles and trails, you can even try emitting an .ASS procedural for complex custom particle geometry with low viewport/rendering overhead.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 07:15 PM   #29
vel0city
PRO
portfolio
velocity
uk, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeebertus
If Arnold's rendering core isn't a 1 million lines-of-code monster algorithm full of crazily forking code, porting to GPU shouldn't be a big deal.

Programmable GPU cores don't work that differently from CPU cores.

GPUs right now are advancing rapidly - if you stay on CPU, you may find that GPU renderers one day run circles around you in terms of raw rendering speed.


It's not just about speed, though. With Arnold you get a super robust and mature renderer with (in v5) an incredibly simple to use but massively powerful physically accurate shader system, unmatched image output, production/workflow features that as someone upthread said will save you hours, responsive devs who reply to queries within minutes, and artist-focussed, easy to understand settings.

All of that counts for me more than jumping on the GPU bandwagon.
 
Old 04-17-2017, 07:27 PM   #30
NWoolridge
Expert
 
NWoolridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeebertus
If Arnold's rendering core isn't a 1 million lines-of-code monster algorithm full of crazily forking code, porting to GPU shouldn't be a big deal.

Programmable GPU cores don't work that differently from CPU cores.


Not to be contentious, but this is a strongly stated claim this is not even remotely true. Writing software that runs effectively on CPUs is very different from doing the same for GPUs. The programming tools are different, the languages are different, the instruction set architecture is different, the debuggers are different, the memory constraints are different, and the algorithms have to be different to account for the differences in the number (by 2-3 orders of magnitude) and complexity of the cores.

It is not simple, and that's why there are numerous successful CPU renderers, and fewer successful GPU renderers, but almost no successful GPU&CPU renderers.
 
reply share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 07:46 PM.


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