Maxwell vs C4D (the cigarette pack)


#1

this is a C4D model rendered in maxwellrender (C4D to FBX to 3DS max to maxwell :hmm: )

here is thehirez file

Here is the C4D rendered pack (done over a year ago):

Thirdeye claims to be able to beat the maxwell render one. (Judging from his previous work it is highly possible) :thumbsup:

this is the zipped C4D file with textures and everything you need.
GET IT HERE

all “competitors” are welcome! Knock yourself out! :wip:

P.S. please report techniques used and render times.
P.S.2 the front texture is a bit jaggy (the client gave me a lorez file)


#2

great idea noseman :thumbsup:

But what was your MW rendertime?

odo


#3

well i downloaded it, had a play for half an hour or so. this is what i got. the render took 7 minutes and 55 seconds (p4 3.0).

i suspect if i quickly knocked down the gamma using the c4d post effect it should be able to match the brightness/color of the maxwell render pretty closely. also some more work on the sky or on a circular soft gradient in front of the camera to get the light falloff towards the edges effect that looks rather nice in the maxwell render would all help.

noticeable gi artifacts though along the front edge (would have to up the gi settings a little to get rid of that), general cleanup of the meshes used was worthwhile too (you don’t need caps on all your cylinders, nor so many segments, and for planes they can be just a single polygon or as few as needed, the more polygons in a scene the slower the render).

[img]http://www.peranders.com/c4d8/celery/camels01.png[/img]

#4

on the spur of the moment i decided to do those quick changes (i.e. the quick gradient and levels tweak) in photoshop.

to me this helps highlight the main weaker areas, which are the filter tips shadows. seeing as this is caused by the gi there could be a couple of ways to resolving this. either modfying the texture to recieve more gi, or changing the environment would work well. also upping the number of bounces used (currently just one).


#5

Hi guys…i had to have a play :slight_smile:

This is based on my cool lighting setup which is based on PillsRic01 which was posted on this forum about 6 months ago. About 30 mins to render at 1000x1000.

Loving that maxwel render…look at those stunning blurry reflections…yum.

AND SOME POST…


#6

And a little sharpening would be good too.


#7

I am not in the mood of benchmarking right now…just want to follow my friend’s (noseman) thread.

By the way Noseman: c4d and industrial visualization is really good…I think many people will outperform maxwell easily.

If you really want to see c4d AR’s weaknesses try some interior lighting.

cy,
Andronikos


#8

sadie’s look as good imho… or not?


#9

sigh, sadies aren’t loading… anyone else find that?


#10

Nah…sadies looks like…select, feather, Gaussien blur. The maxwel one looks very realistic for that surface.


#11

Maybe that’s because in Maxwell you see the reflection of those two cigs on the floor… Dunno they look identical to me, but maybe that’s just me.


#12

Ouch knocked out in the first round. :surprised 7 min… Cant beat that, and it looks pretty much the same. I agree with Andronikos for product visuliaziation cinema is very good especially in the hands of masters like Sadie and Thirdeye. Its the interior enviornments where accurate and believable light distrubution shine in maxwell. Not that product shots I have seen in Maxwell don’t look awesome. The time issue is the main factor. Why would a person wait half a day just to get subtle differnences that only we and not our clients would catch anyway.

I would say maxwell is good because it allows the beginner to intermediate user to get good results without having to master a lot of settings like cinema. You can pretty much just throw in a sky dome or physical sky hit render and the output quality is fully acceptable.

Im rooting for both of these programs since I own both. Competetion between companys is good for all of us in the end. That way you don’t end up with mediocre products like… cough, cough microsoft windows…which I use every day. But thats a whole nother can of worms.


#13

they’re straight out of cinema, standard blurry reflections, no post work done on them. they’re accurate. look again.


#14

make sure your browser can support png, if it can’t then here’s the first one in jpg (no post work) format:


#15

here is my test. can’t get the colors right, there are some splotches too.

rendertime exactly 38 min on a 1GHz AMD Athlon

Bob


#16

up to now:
mdme_sadie’s is getting better and better… excellent I should say, BUT it still gets too dark in the areas between the cigarettes, which is not the case in reality (maybe the gamma?).

Bobtonic’s seems a bit better, but is too flat and has splotches under the cigarettes…

R1PPER something’s wrong with your textures… and the inside lighting is screwed up (too light)

even though they are getting better and better, they will never beat the final maxwellrender in terms of reality.
No untrained eye will ever spot the difference though, but the fact is with maxwell that I setup for 2 minutes, press render and go to sleep. Next morning, VoilĂ , a photo!

Keep it up, it’s getting interesting!

BTW where is third-eye hiding? :curious: he he

P.S. andronikos is my pal!! :love:


#17

hehe i’m not hiding, just doing something for cgnetworks now, they asked me a behind the scene of my asian kid :wink: about Per’s you’re right but i think he’s using 1 light bounce, he should use at least 2. About bobtronic you’re definitely right, about the textures of R1PPER it’s because your file has no sampling for any textures!!! I had to correct it manually but that’s no big problem. We’ll see what i can do with it, i’m quite sure i can come up with something good :wink: A question: have you used only the Maxwell sky or lights too? Rendertime?


#18

aha! gotcha! :thumbsup:

lighting is physical sky + 2 emitter objects (as you would light an outdoor scene with reflector planes) no sun BTW.

The original render was done at 2048x1536 and left over rendering while I was away for the weekend. The problem is that I cannot say when the realism level was good enough to stop the rendering. So an accurate time can’t be mentioned (It was running for over 70 hours) but it could be running for a month and you would see no difference at all.

I will render a 800x600 tomorrow and post result and time. I’ll render it on my PC (mac code needs optimisation)

KEEP RENDERING!


#19

here is my shot at it

render time of 03:02:04
no lights just a sky object
render size as is.
dual 2.5 G5


#20

somehow the reflections are brighter than the actual lit objects? tone those down a bit and away you go.

cheers, simon w.