C4D
- Started
- Last post
- 165 Responses
- antimotion0
Hey crew - I just started getting into C4D. Literally opened it a few weeks ago. I feel like a 2 year old trying to drive an F1 car. The program is insane - in a good way.
I stumbled upon a render engine called Octane - it looks super sweet and I think it will really help me understand what I'm looking at when I push all these fancy buttons - but, I'm on a mac with an AMD card and they don't support.
Are there any other dope render engines that would provide the same fluidity, free, fairly cheap?
I've also heard of Arnold, but it seems like a pretty heavy fee...
BTW - thanks for all the inspiration from you 3D cats - so FKN good - can't wait to join in!
- if you're just starting, seems to me you should figure out the built in engine before moving to a third party one.johnny_wobble
- Yeah. You should understand how physical rendering works first before jumping into a new engine. The principles carry across - sunlight, environments, cameras.face_melter
- Depending on which version of C4D you have, its own Physical Render system is pretty good straight out the box.face_melter
- It doesn't matter which engine you use, you still need to put in the work to make the results look good. I use Vray and after 4 years I am still learning thingsface_melter
- Don't mean to sound all Negative Nancy - these things *are* complicated and it takes time to pick your way through it all.face_melter
- Thanks for the notes - yep, definitely trying to get into it - easy to get lost with this one haha..antimotion
- Yup, it can seen overwhelming at first. My advice is to either follow tutorials or set yourself a simple project - that way you learn workflow and operations.face_melter
- When I teach people, I take them through my work process - from importing geometry to final render. Each stage has defined steps that build upon the last.face_melter
- The internal render engine in C4d is pretty great IMO. It's all I use. My approach has always been to focus on image making instead of fancy plugins.baseline_shift
- Yes, the Physical Renderer is great but it is slow to the point of being unusable very often. Try using motion blur or depth of field without a render farm.CyBrainX
- Totally... Or blurry reflections, etc. That's why I keep my setups so simple.baseline_shift
- baseline_shift1
Antimotion, if it's helpful I've been making a series of screencasts highlighting my workflow. The most recent one is here:
Its a bit fast, and I don't narrate over it like a proper tutorial, but it will at least give you a sense of one persons typical workflow.
Good luck!! Ive been using cinema for 6 or 7 years, and I'm still uncovering new things.
- Everyone is still uncovering new things in C4D.CyBrainX
- Thanks Baseline - I will definitely check out - really dig your style!antimotion
- face_melter2
Interesting 'feature' which I have encountered once or twice in C4D and worth letting others know about it. Because I handle architecture models, they are normally built using the Swedish coordinates system which means they are, digitally, in the same location as the physical space - makes it easier to position new elements in relation to existing buildings, roads etc.
Anyway. During an import, C4D tries to reconcile those coordinates with its own XYZ system and sometimes places the model the equivalent of 5000km (or whatever) from 0,0,0. The 'interesting' side effect of this is that the further the geometry moves from 0,0,0 the more visibly corrupt the renders become.
So, if you are ever working with a model and the renders are showing weird artifacts and polygon lines but the geometry is solid, check the coordinates of the model.
- face_melter0
Vray is turning into a bastard shitpile monster, with a lot of effort producing middling results. A decent version of V3 is probably years away even though they are running a beta just now. To that end I am trying out new render engines.
Arnold seems to click with me instantly, producing sharp results out of the box with a good level of tinkering to make improvements - far more than Octane did (another replacement candidate).
Is anyone here using it, or has used it? Any pitfalls or things to look out for?
- I haven't used it, but I'm interested in this: https://twitter.com/…MrBixler
- ...also C4D's own GPU render collaboration with AMD looks interesting...MrBixler
- https://www.maxon.ne…MrBixler
- CyBrainX4
I have a confession to make.
For many years if I needed to make a complex object a simple mesh, I used a lot of connect objects, connect and delete attempts and spend long periods of time with inconsistent results.
I recently discovered Current State to Object in the Object menu of the Object Manager. Don't be like me. Use Current State to Object.
Enjoy your Tuesday and thank you for your time.
- where_am_i1
Do any of you use PC for c4d?
thinking about getting a machine for rendering but have no idea what to get. Havent had a PC in 15/20 years. Any suggestions on where to start?
anyone know if mac to pc (or v/versa) projects have issues?
thanks
- or alt, buy old mac pro and customize the shit out of itwhere_am_i
- C4D runs ok on Macs, but given the recent minuscule spec bumps, for a dedicated 3D machine, PC is the way to go if you want pure grunt for your money.face_melter
- Files are agnostic, so they work across platforms. Only thing you need to watch is plugin compatibility. Some, such as Vray, use dedicated OSX versions.face_melter
- C4D performance was the main reason I moved from Mac to PC. Like, 4x the power at half the price.face_melter
- mekk0
^ C4D renders exclusively on the CPU, so it's nice to get started with 6 or 8 cores. Depending on how heavy your work will be, of course. Intel has a feature called Hyper Threading, which C4D and other apps make great use of, it's available only for i7 and Xeon machines. If you're looking for an exclusive heavy workstation look for a dual quad-core/six-core xeon one. If it just needs to be a fast private machine that also runs games get an i7. Same goes for RAM, depending on your workload. But RAM is cheap these days, I'd go for 32GB. Important is that you have four identical blocks so you have quad channel which speeds up the system by a lot. Get a dedicated GPU for better system performance. Best an nvidia to have some cuda cores in case you need some. And an SSD of course.
Example Build:
- i7 6800k (ca. 480€)
- X99 (Socket 2011-3) Mainboard (ca. 250€)
- Nvida GTX1060 (ca. 300€)
- 32GB DDR4 ram (4x 8GB) @3200MHZ (ca. 200€)
- 500GB M.2 SSD (M2. is a slot on the mainboard, no cables etc. and faster - 150€)
- Case (€50 - open end, I recommend phanteks entoo and NZXT)
- Power Supply of 500W+ (buy a good one... 80€+)Nice to Have is an AIO water cooling for your CPU, like the Corsair H100i, keeps the whole system cool and almost dead silent. And you should add good fans to the case, noctua makes great ones. And you need a windows key of course :)
I don't know of any big issues when switching, not in Adobe or in C4D. .DS_Store files will be there probably, that is where mac finder stores the thumbnails etc. And you don't have color tags on folders anymore if you used them.
Hit me up if you need a detailed part list. Putting that stuff together is no big deal, have a look at some youtube guys that explain that. But it's like LEGO..
- Octane uses GPU rendering, so you need a beefy card. Two is the preferred setup because using one to render causes the system to grind...face_melter
- ...whereas having two means you can render with one and use other programs with the other, such as Ps.face_melter
- The world seems to gradually moving towards GPU rendering, so it is best to future-proof yourself and get a pair of decent cards.face_melter
- that is the nice thing on PC, just slap 'em in when you need em. I think where_am_i needs to specify a bit what exaclty he does to get a proper buildmekk
- Yup. Best thing is to set a budget, see what you can get for the cash. Took me a while to settle on a preferred build. Skimped the case but spunked on the CPU.face_melter
- where_am_i0
hey face melter can i get a more detailed response please ;)
hehe thanks thats great info. Just thinking about it at the moment. I do mainly motion stuff but the physical renderer/DOF struggles on my laptop. So been thinking about a machine I could leave at office and hit render etc.
Def want GPU as would like to get into some octane too.
Thanks again for the detailed response
do you find the system stable? My memory of my old PC with studio max etc was a crash every few minutes
- oops sorry i meant 'mekk'where_am_i
- and facemelter obzwhere_am_i
- Stability isn't really an issue with C4D nowadays - plugins cause it to fall over. My setup at home and at work has been great, only Vray gives me grief.face_melter
- Arnold has also been great (non-GPU rendering though), but various weird glitches prevent me from switching over completely.face_melter
- Where are you based and what is your budget? Maybe I can pick a list at PCPartPicker.com for you. Do you plan on building yourself?mekk
- thanks im in south africa, it is merely a thought at the momentwhere_am_i
- oh I heard harware prices are insane there. Start over at pcpartpicker, they also have builds for rendering to start with :)mekk
- baseline_shift-1
Watch me model a chicken in C4d. :D
- baseline_shift1
Or this one perhaps...
- CyBrainX0
How about this classic. Deadpan genius.
- err0
Im dislexic I thought this was about:
- CyBrainX0
Render people:
What is your renderer of choice? Do you use Octane or Arnold? This was a great starter but I'm still not sure which way to go. I'm going to be using X-Particles soon, Not sure if that's relevant. Tell me your preference and why. I haven't used either.
- I use a lot of standard and some physical, just learned octane, it is good for the live previewfeel
- I would say I use Standard 80-90% of the time. It's so much faster but Physical can get some very superior renders.CyBrainX
- I use Vray, the recent 3.4 update is incredible compared to the fucking garbage that was 1.9 - two+ fucking years that thing has been going with no updates.face_melter
- It adds RT, (limited) GPU rendering, faster performance, better setups, and a improved UI. Very impressed actually. Learning curve is a fucking nightmare thoughface_melter
- Tried Octane - not keen. Sorta like Arnold but as mentioned below - the speed can cause a problem. There are ways to diagnose what causes the bottleneck...face_melter
- ...but you need to get deep into the guts of it to smooth things out. Results are great though.face_melter
- Yeah, we had to spend almost as much time optimizing as lighting... still had 1 hour frames down from like 4 hours... but it was dense mesh + photo realJulesvm
- That's the rub for me - doing arch-viz, everything has to be real, or at least appear real. Reflections and detail for days :/face_melter
- HAYZ1LLLA0
Who's gonna fucking hook me up with a copy of this shit then????
I got this cheeseburger man!!
- I have been trying for years. It's just not around.CyBrainX
- There's a decent torrent of R18 kicking about now. Or so I have been told.face_melter
- I've got R15 for sale, £2k and it's yours. bought for £3kfruitsalad
- I'll toss your salad?HAYZ1LLLA
- Julesvm0
I just finished a big gig on Arnold... I've used Octane in the past and I'm conflicted
On one hand Arnold is bullet proof... doesn't blink at heavy geo, and that was a life saver. But if you want high quality grain free results, it's still very slow. We were getting ~1hour frames.
Octane is super fast, but requires expensive GPUs and honestly a switch off of OSX - haven't pulled the trigger on either.
I also think Arnold is way easier to use.
- Also worth noting that the Arnold debs have been teasing a GPU version of Arnold to be released soonJulesvm
- Also when I'm thinking back to Octane days I was getting similar render times when I cranked the settings, but that was on 5year old hardwareJulesvm
- I'm on a 12 core trash can with 32 GB RAM. Thanks for the input.CyBrainX
- Ran into the same problems when testing Arnold. From what I have read, using various passes to diagnose what takes the time ie. grain/noise is the way to go.face_melter
- Despite being balls-deep in Vray, I'm impressed with Arnold. Took no time to fathom it out and get it running, even recreating difficult Vray materials.face_melter
- CyBrain Unless you want to get off the Mac Pro you should def go ArnoldJulesvm
- I will buy a PC for home but I got my company to spend about $10k on my Mac Pro last year so getting a new computer at work isn't an option for a while.CyBrainX
- face_melter0
Testing RT render in the new version of Vray for C4D...
Bit of a fucking beast. It seems the more complex/heavy the geometry the longer it takes to start up, so anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes you are staring at a black window hoping that Cinema hasn't fallen over. Then *BANG* you get what starts out as a fairly grainy render which improves sharply over the next few passes. Good for getting previews out the door, which is what i'm using it for now. But still, 128GB of ram. Fuck me.
- 125 gb ram aahahahsted
- oh crap i see :D i would suggest to close ps during the render... (you will see why :)sted
- Chrome's no memory minnow either...detritus
- Ps doesn't impact much when the file is small. Now, if it was Illustrator my machine would explode and take most of the office with it.face_melter
- on windows ps is using resources in the bg with that html helper service (Adobe CEF Helper)sted
- Works fine for me. RT spikes the ram/cpu then settles down when the passes start. My machine can handle having both running.face_melter
- phobos790
For people who don't want to invest on an external renderer you can use Physical with purely reflectance based materials. You get the same physically based look. The render times can be high but the results are amazing.
This is a workflow not a lot of people know and if they did they would probably not spend the money for external renderers.
I want to make a tutorial about it but I keep postponing it because you know, procrastination...- Global Illumination is pretty good, but definitely time consuming to cast all the photons.nthkl
- Julesvm0
RedShift for C4D is imminently around the corner, and apparently you can get on the beta.
It's claiming to be the more professional, stable GPU renderer of choice as compared to Octane. A couple buddies who've tried it agree.