Corona Beta RC1 Out

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  3 Weeks Ago
Corona Beta RC1 Out

https://corona-renderer.com/blog/co...ate-1-released/

Material Stacking - Yay!
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Nice. Hopefully people post their experiences. I don't have time to mess with it this holiday but any physically accurate (OK "plausibly physically accurate") renderer built for macOS and without a CUDA dependancy is something I'm going to try.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Great! Thanks!
 
  3 Weeks Ago
How long has Corona been in beta for? Seems like its been years now.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Actually it's been in Alpha, this is the first beta release.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by Blinny: Nice. Hopefully people post their experiences.
Corona is actually impressive.. It renders amazingly fast for a CPU based rendering engine, very easy to use, it has nice volumetrics... oh, and the volume material is also very good..
Try it asap...
__________________
• I don't speak English "by default", so...
• Join Cinema 4D Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/3skdKMU
 
  3 Weeks Ago
I was around in the 90's, to witness and enjoy the absolute insane development for 3d applications...once upon a time, so many apps, seemingly a new one every month. Many on both mac and pc, but of course the big ones were focused on SGI platform.
I learned on Alias, and personally owned Electrogig. 

The number of new rendering engines that have come out last few years, feels very much like the fast paced development that occurred many years ago. 
Fun stuff!  
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Spent a couple of hours tonight playing around with it. But uninstalled, because...

1. I didn't find it to be that fast, at all really. (on a 20 Core V4 Xeon here, which flies with Vray)
2. Very limited in production readiness. Feels as though it as a long way to go before it could replace Vray, Octane or Maxwell Render.
3. Spent forever looking for Color Mapping tools, to no avail. There's a LUT loader similar to Octane and physical camera tools too,
but no exponential or reinhard workflows as seen in demo videos w/ 3DSMax integration. Without, interior shots were difficult to balance.
4. Volumetric implementation felt weak and unfinished. I use a lot of physical based volumes in my work and this was poorly implemented.

Worth a look, but it felt like an Alpha release of Maxwell Render.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by ThePriest: Spent a couple of hours tonight playing around with it. But uninstalled, because...

1. I didn't find it to be that fast, at all really. (on a 20 Core V4 Xeon here, which flies with Vray)
2. Very limited in production readiness. Feels as though it as a long way to go before it could replace Vray, Octane or Maxwell Render.
3. Spent forever looking for Color Mapping tools, to no avail. There's a LUT loader similar to Octane and physical camera tools too,
but no exponential or reinhard workflows as seen in demo videos w/ 3DSMax integration. Without, interior shots were difficult to balance.
4. Volumetric implementation felt weak and unfinished. I use a lot of physical based volumes in my work and this was poorly implemented.

Worth a look, but it felt like an Alpha release of Maxwell Render.

Funny, I am having quite a different experience with it here. Full disclaimer, I've been using it for commercial projects for the past 2 years (C4D and to an extent the 3ds Max plugin).

I'd like to offer some of my impressions and compare them with yours if you don't mind 

1. I find it predictably fast in interiors and fairly fast in other scenarios. Oddly, I could say the same for V-Ray (not the biggest fan of the C4D implementation) and from my impression I find these two to be in a stalemate speed wise. I've had renders take 6 hours on a 72 thread machine using V-Ray and using Corona.

2. I'd agree with this point if your production is based on VFX / Complex motion graphics. To me it excels in arch-viz and product viz. 

Corona is currently not supporting VDBs (not even the 3ds Max version) and the C4D plugin is still having some issues with ironing out bugs that might make it harder to work with motion graphics. That said, it has been used in movies and for VFX shots in the past but overall I think V-Ray and Redshift are currently more suited for that - especially so if you import sims from Houdini etc...

3. I have quite a different opinion on this one  I find Corona to be one of the go-to renderers for tone mapping / color mapping controls inside your DCC app. Render Legion even "spinned off" the Corona VFB as Corona Image Editor because it offers LUT control, Filmic Highlight & Shadow control, Curves, Sharpness, Lightmixing, Bloom & Glare and all that inside the VFB.

In fact, there are many users out there who practically don't do post-production on their renders because the VFB is so relatively powerful. Based on my impressions, Corona is a top contender for the renderer with which you can output "finished" renders right out of your DCC app. In that regard I'd probably say its the best in class for that type of a job even if you take F-Storm (3ds Max) and Octane into account.

On the topic of Reinhard, it is the default color mapper in Corona. When you spin the highlight compression spinner you control the reinhard values.

4. I find volumetrics to be very intuitive and pleasant to use in Corona. If I am not mistaken they use unbiased alghorithms for it (at least for the most part) but you do lack finer control over them - you can hardly optimize it (unless you change GI / AA samples) and you can't control some of the finer details like you would in for example V-Ray. I find the results to be really good for the jobs I do.

Overall I'd say that its always great to have more than one tool ready for a given job. 

Like I said before, I find Corona to be really amazing for arch-viz and product viz. Its got a really nice, soft GI look to it and it actually gives you the ability to get awesome renders out of it in very little time. Its leaning on the unbiased side so for certain tasks it can be slower but surprisingly fast for others. I'll risk repeating myself here but to me V-Ray and Corona appear to be even in terms of speed.

For VFX I don't think its the right tool at this time. The crucial VFX support is still missing but it is on the roadmap (for the 3ds Max plugin first though). You can use it for certain shots yeah but overall I'd say V-Ray / Redshift are way better suited for those types of jobs. They have more features and are a bit more complex (which might be the reason some don't use those two, ha!).

Motion graphics appear to be somewhere in the middle. I reckon some users will find themselves restrained similarly as in Octane but others will enjoy its ability to output great looking images right inside C4D without much post-production. There are however still a few issues that need to be ironed out in the C4D plugin especially for certain mograph stuff. I would point out that for simpler scenes (without that much GI, super complex shaders) I'd rethink using Redshift or Octane because depending on your hardware they might be faster. I am saying that based on what my colleagues and friends are telling me - I haven't used Redshift or Octane extensively.

So yeah, Corona was first made with arch-viz and product viz in mind so naturally I think that for those types of jobs its really great - its Octane / Fstorm like where you don't need to tinker with settings at all, period. It is branching out into other roles as well (its been used in movies too) but I'd be mindful of where exactly are some of the drawbacks at this time - especially for the C4D plugin which just entered Beta 1.

Personally I use Corona for 3/4 of my jobs and the rest goes to V-Ray. I am looking into Redshift as well as F-Storm (I dislike Autodesk with a passion though so I am trying to avoid 3ds Max) but for most of the projects I get the job done perfectly with those two. I am not doing that many mograph / VFX jobs though.

Just my five cents. I probably left some stuff out and didn't list all the pros and cons so the best thing I can say is - Try it out and see if you like it. Be aware that its in beta though. There is stuff that doesn't work as intended yet. That and its strongest suit is probably arch-viz, product viz instead of ... whatever else

Last edited by nejck : 3 Weeks Ago at 03:08 PM.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
If your VRay renders are taking 7 hours, I would assume you're not 100% familiar with it's optimization features.
I know of people throw on the Universal settings with rediciously high AA, progressive rendering and then expect fast renders.
Personally I still use IR/LC and buckets and can get even the most complex scenes with millions of instances, fog scattering and 100's lights rendered in a couple of hours.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
  3 Weeks Ago
I feel like that was a bit of a bold statement but I get ya  So most of my work is 4k+ (even 8k+) with harder GI scenarios like interiors with small windows and as you can imagine that takes time on any settings. I prefer BF / LC for a few reasons. Besides, V-Ray got pretty efficient in 3.x+ with the default settings (Pretty much what Vlado said too If I recall correctly... Many times). Progressive mode eliminates some of the extra tweaking as well. I don't consider myself a top 1% expert on V-Ray settings but neither do I consider myself a total rookie

Don't think many people use universal settings anymore too.

I think thats one of the main reasons why so many people switched to Corona in the first place - way less settings to be tweaked. As a more technical user, I do find V-Ray and its customizable approach welcome too - for specific projects that is. Like I said, I find good use cases for both of these engines

edit: Both can be fast depending on the scenario imho

Last edited by nejck : 3 Weeks Ago at 02:16 PM.
 
  2 Weeks Ago
I agree with everything Nejck says. I bought vray on I think the first day it came out as a beta, it was amazing at the time and I used it for many years but as soon as I tried Corona over two years ago now I immediately started using it in production and havent looked back since. You really cant beat the quality of light for arch viz and the workflow is much better for getting great results without the 1001 slots and settings in Vray. Finally Vray has got better in 3.4 but for me the horse had long since bolted.

I'd invite people to look at the two galleries of VrayforC4D and Corona (doesnt have a separate one for C4D) and you can see the difference in light and material quality. Not saying Vray is bad but I really think you can see the enhanced realism in the corona shots, its like every ray really counts and picks up all incidental shadows.

I dont do VFX but I know vray has been in that environment for a long time and has many tricks up its sleeves and I can see why it would be better in those situations.

Vray also has much better proxies at this point but hopefully Corona will get there in the next beta as its on the road map. You can use render instances but its not the same.

Priest, the tone mapping tools are in the corona vfb which you can launch from the corona menu on the top - as Nejck says this is really one of Coronas strong suits. Also on a 20 core xeon that should fly. I run a thread ripper and its great but yes it can take a while on 8K renders. Because its progressive though you can call time at any time and dont need to wait for buckets. I think some of the time people run images for too long and you get diminishing returns the more it refines.

Definitely better than Maxwell 
 
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 07:33 AM.


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