FinalRender Q/A please!


#1
  1. How exactly does finalrender work? When one purchases finalrender, does one get a stand-alone program and a c4d plugin that utilizes the power of the renderer via c4d interface? Or is the plugin a “program” that accesses the native c4d renderer to create the images faster, clearer, crisper, etc.?
  2. Am I correct in saying that the “translator” is the plugin?
  3. I’ve heard much about the render speed by people with more than one cpu. What value would it be to have fr-2 on my own desktop with one PIV cpu?

Thanks!


#2

It is a plug in and basicly you activate it in the effects menu. It is extreamly fast so if you only have one CPU I think you will still see significant speed performance over AR. You can use fR materials or even just uses cinemas material system…there are a million settings, so play with this, and play with that…then buckets o’hoy!


#3

FR2 is not a plugin, it is a complete separate application, but there is also a plugin that allows C4D to translate and communicate with it.
It doesn’t appear as two different applications, though, as it is seamlessly integrated into C4D (via the effect tab, in the render options).

FR2 is overall faster than AR2, and GIs are cleaner. There are quite a lot of things that differ, it is after all a new render engine, that comes with its own look and feel.
Some effects are a lot better too, like the depth of field and SSS.

A lot of control and option can be tempered with, and the shader tree, which allows to go more in-depth into the engine itself.

Then, there is the distributed render, which offers the possibility to render the same image using up to 10 processors (be it static or animation files).

AR is still a great render, though, and I think the greatest strength of FR2 over AR2 so far is in its clean flicker-free GIs when animating.


#4

agree 100%… just want to add that for some users, shader tree might seem confusing. At least happened to me that I hated Maya mat. editor.

I am still strugling to understanding it… but I have spent less than 10hrs…


#5

Well you can always use C4d shaders instead of the FR tree if you prefer to work with these, as most of them work fine. - or you can use a combination of both.
The Shader tree takes a while to get used to it, but there is a lot of depth there. And it gives a lot of advantages even in creating simple shaders, such a copy-paste several connected links at once into a shader, or to quickly try out different alternatives within the same shader…


#6

does final render work the same with 9.1 as 9.5? So if you had 9.1 and bought FR there would be little point in upgrading to 9.5? As you get a ‘better’ renderer and also the ability to bake objects the same - just no volumetric skies, (would be my main reason for upgrading).

FR looks mighty complicated with the amount of settings you can tweek - will it work just using a similar approach that you might use with AR - so a few basic setting but getting a much cleaner image and faster. Obviously i can see the benefit of having such high levels of control - but with something like maxwell the beauty of it is you save a lot of time + frustration in set-up (hopefully when its R1) and get a great image out of it. Everyone knows it is possible to get great pics out of AR but they also know that it can be hit and miss and time consuming! So just wondering if you can bypass a lot of those controls and get a good image still?

Also what are the worst features of FR? Is there anything AR does better? Lastly, im sure its been asked before but i can’t find it - does it work with sketch and toon and storm tracer?

Cheers, Rob


#7

AFAIK there’s a 9.5 version and a 9.x version, so it should work either way. I’m not 100% sure though, but 99%. Although FR has a physical sky, it’s not currently as feature-rich as the C4D sky module. The baking tools of 9.5 are more advanced that those in FR.

FR looks mighty complicated with the amount of settings you can tweek - will it work just using a similar approach that you might use with AR - so a few basic setting but getting a much cleaner image and faster. Obviously i can see the benefit of having such high levels of control - but with something like maxwell the beauty of it is you save a lot of time + frustration in set-up (hopefully when its R1) and get a great image out of it. Everyone knows it is possible to get great pics out of AR but they also know that it can be hit and miss and time consuming! So just wondering if you can bypass a lot of those controls and get a good image still?

In my experience, the default settings in FR usually give you very good results from the get-go, so most of the time you will only need to tweak a small subset of the controls available. In a typical GI-based scene, I’d say it’s definitely easier to get good results in FR.

Also what are the worst features of FR? Is there anything AR does better?

The FR multi-pass functionality (render elements) is not yet on par with AR. That’s my main reason for still using AR a lot. Some types of effects are also slower in FR, such as high-precision volumetrics (with low sample radii). And depending on what you do, it can be argued that while FR’s true 3D DOF is by far superior in quality, it is also a lot slower than Z-based blurring that AR uses.

Lastly, im sure its been asked before but i can’t find it - does it work with sketch and toon and storm tracer?

I have not tested that, but considering the nature of those effects, I seriously doubt they work.

.


#8

edit> James had answered this better

one point,
S+T will not render in the same rendering as FR, but you can render it as separate image and comp it . I have always done that with AR+ Sketch anyway, as it is much faster and more flexible.


#9

Yes, you’ll need to composite Storm Tracer too, but it’s not that complicated, just another render pass. These are specific external post effects, so don’t expect compatibility here.

So far, I would say that what FR has the most trouble to translate from C4D are the new area lights. Not all are compatible, and that is a big hole (at least for me), since I use them a lot.

The big idea behind the fact that you have a lot of settings is to biaise as much as possible so you retain good quality but you gain on the render side, that’s why FR is so strong for animation compared to AR and Maxwell.
You have also a lot more control for your creativity, which is a good thing, since if you let the render engine take control over you, your image is lifeless or lack personality.
Suitable for archviz and pack shots, but not for all kind of prods’.

Don’t be scared by the number of settings, though, a lot of things can be done with only a few options.


#10

@JamesMK
>>The baking tools of 9.5 are more advanced that those in FR.<>

Why do you say this? What is better in CINEMA ? How I see it our baking is much more advanced. Let me know what we missed in your work flow!
edwin


#11

Nah, it’s not much that differs really, and looking at my particular workflow, there are no glaring omissions (I would probably have been ranting about that in the beta forum if that was the case :wink: )

BUT, since this was a general question, looking at the two bakers side by side, C4D does have a few more options, such as the built-in UV remapping, a wider range of supported bitmap formats (including HDR), and the possibility to bake sequenced textures (a user definable range of frames).

No biggies after all, and considering what FR adds in terms of rendering power, it’s definitely no deal-breaker.

.


#12

FR for me is all i ever wished to have in AR. some parts are missing still for a 100% integration, but i think they will ba added as much as possible.

for a version 1.0 FR is a dream:-)
cheers
stefan


#13

Gotta say that I love fR. It’s quite excellent for a 1.0 product. I look forward to better learning materials, improved stability (though it’s not bad now), and expanded shader controls.


#14

i second that!

cheers
stefan


#15

can someone post a list of the shaders that don’t work with FR? i’m also curious if the 3rd party made plugins (i.e. translucent pro) work in combination with FR. thank you.


#16

no thirdparty of course,
no 3d shaders
no pyrocluster
some of the “effects” shaders like lumas, proximal, spline etc.

sss work with some limitation, but fr has better SSS anyways.
distorter works as node.

all other work, including the great sla noises:-)

actually the only one i am missing is the lumas shader.

stefan


#17

What kind of stability issue do you have Adam?
So far, I’m having a hard time making it crash, so if you have an issue, I would like to reprot it, if possible :slight_smile:


#18

Nothing repeatable or I’d have reported it already. For the most part it’s been quite stable.


#19

I thought we’ve covered that before–if not here then on the Cebas forum. For me the only stabilty issue has been with DR rendering. Maybe a crash or two with DR turned off, though.

There are some other odd bits, like difusion channel in a Cinema material only working if its set to 100% strength. Odd, but true.

Overall a great product. On the cebas/C4D forum you can hear the crickets. On the Maxwell forum, its angry mods and neighbor-against-neighbor street fights.

Oh, I got my check for my first project rendered with fR2. What more do we need to see fR2 as a success than people earning a living with it?


#20

I’m glad you all like it, it sure is a great product for a version 1.0 :slight_smile:

Yes, DR poses some problems on big scenes sometimes, but I think it’s overall a memory problem, that they are looking at.
I will report the diffusion problem, never paid attention before.