C4D

Out of context: Reply #119

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 165 Responses
  • imbecile0

    Opinions on rendering engines? I will be doing mostly highly realistic still renders of digital devices with the occasional 30 second video spot.

    I have been thinking Octane ($399) but stumbled across Indigo ($728). I also found Furryball ($317) and Corona (Free). Then I remembered Arnold ($65/mo). There is also Cycles ($245 or $889 w/ X-Particles ) and Redshift ($500) and of course VRay ($900).

    I can see myself using X-Particles so a little discount with Cycles would be nice though I constantly see renders from Octane I like, and considering the price and learning curve with VRay, seems like an easy decision.

    Thoughts, input, or experiences with any of these engines?

    Thank you

    imbecile 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • Going by all the mograph/3D news and social, Octane seems to be the least favored right now, with Redshift taking the favorite spot.evilpeacock
    • Octane has a reputation for being the fastest. For high realism with lots of light, refraction and reflection, Arnold might be worth looking into.CyBrainX
    • I wish I knew what to recommend. You just mentioned a few more I never heard of.CyBrainX
    • Arnold has a steep learning curve, along with speed issues if the setup isn't properly optimised. Results are great.face_melter
    • C4D's own Physical Render is well regarded and can produce very good results. Octane is becoming most folk's weapon of choice - good results with minimal setup.face_melter
    • At least in archviz work - which depends a lot on quick turnaround. You can have a working image within 15 minutes.face_melter
    • octane is so 2016
      Arnold is apparently 2018      dorkKn1ght
    • Octane is just so easy to pick up especially for small jobs. Arnold works better for our cloud renders and across Maya/c4d tho.dorkKn1ght
    • Redshift is the way to go.
      It has the same speed (or faster) than Octane, but its production ready. You can customize things much better, material, light setup      Fabricio
    • and a lot of other things, it has compatiblity with C4D own shaders, and it has changed the way I work with 3D.Fabricio
    • Physical Render is a good start if you havent used anything, but I cant imagine myself waiting so long to see results ever again...Fabricio
    • If you want to add camera depth of field, motion blur, subsurface scattering, etc on Redshift, you can see that almost realtime.. in Physical... forget it.Fabricio
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread