Render engines speed comparison - a new perspective
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2022
- @blenderguru : Cycles, Vray, Redshift, Luxcore, Arnold, Corona, Octane, E-Cycles and Cycles X - in the most thorough, head to head test ever.
And indeed, he did a great job of organizing, testing, rendering and spending huge amount of time and energy on this, and I really appreciate his dedication and awesome work.
There are some mistakes, in my humble opinion, and I will be addressing them here.
One more time, thanks Andrew for the great content, and waiting for more as always. - Наука та технологія
This video let me rethink my complete workflow. Thank you a 1000 times for this inspiration.
Great video! Thank you for sharing David Attenborough's review of a Render engine!
Thank you! This is very well done :) I learnt a lot of stuff today
As a good example look at Octane, Adaptive Sampling and Denoise are not ON by default. But even novice users are going to check those boxes. With those two items checked, Octane is 10X to 100X times faster.
Thank you! I did think his video was a bit simple and was disappointed by it so thank you for breaking it down.
Great video, very enlightening, we have to think outside the box. Thank you for the good work.
I am very thankful for the kind words. Thank you
did not expect that at all lmao - great video tho! got a new sub, liked to see more :)
oh I love that wise old man ! it is so informative , thank you !
This is a gem. Very Foundational understanding.
thanks dude this was great.
This is a very well made video which deserves way more views. I have to agree your statement when it comes to overall pros and cons of different engines. I have seen many videos (not even on YT) where ppl just look with one perspective to an subject (engine) without even the base knowledge nor understanding that it's just more than pressing a few buttons and sliders to call it a day.
If you have an specific vision or art style, not every engine suits your needs - you have to figure out what you like and go with the best option for your workflow. I personally don't like the "cycles or eevee look" from certain types of images, yet those two are good engines for ppl who like to create the "fitting" content with it.
Just mixing different engines together and compare them by raw "speed values" isn't really a thing to go with and as much as I appreciate the time and effort blender guru has put into making his video, it was sadly a misstep.
Bro, the intro "He's crazy" I lost it. That's so good hahah
Real time render is the way to go! And if you want to go free from subscriptions…Unreal+Blender is the perfect combo!
Great video :)
Naive approach to evaluate things is perfectly valid in science. This is the first step to analytics and problem solving. Thanks Andrew
good video by the way
used octane, cycles and some vray - I always wanted to learn proper vray, it was so damn difficult to get the right settings, I gave up many times and it felt slow (therefore slow to learn), as as octane hit beta I had my first renders I was proud of, the fact that each slight change I did was instatly rendered and fedback in real time made it 1000 times faster to learn.. in the end I felt that some interior scens seemed they could be rendered faster with heavily optimized vray - but I stuck to octane because I could iterate quickly - open scenes - (not interiors) in octane were blazing fast, and feedback was awesome, my workflow was to simply have octane open all the time while I actually built the scene, it gave me a totally new perspective when doing any 3d as I could decide on the fly what I wanted to do - just modeling out stuff and hitting render seemed so slow and I can't go back on a render engine that just works like that .. I'm hooked on interactive rendering, it makes decision making faster ..
In the end I did realize you could probably do interiors faster, again went back to vray, and no.. it's damn to complex, and I couldn't get hooked on that ..
Then I switched to blender (from max/octane).. and from version 2.8 cycles felt very similar to octane, but twice as slow - but eeve was amazing, I was hooked on eeve - and with cycles x / blender 3.0 i guess - cycles finally felt like it was getting as close as possible to octane speeds - and yeah it's native to blender and I think it's much better since octane implementation in max is never going to feel like native - or like vray (vray is almost native to 3dmax, everyone supports it, octane took a decade to get as close as possible and still fails with a lot of plugins), where cycles works with anything that works natively in blender - and honestly, the look - depends on your skills - I had people claiming I did renders in 3dsmax while it was in blender.. after you've gone pro, it doesn't matter, you know the look you like and that's what you're gonna get..
Some things are faster or more convenient in octane, some are in cycles.. I prefer cycles now as it's ease of use and interactivity became almost same as using eeve - and it's compatible with everything blender - if they made octane work in blender natively I'd probably switch in a second..
.. the video doesn't say much at the end - try stuff out, see what you like - use that, the best tool is the one you are productive in
(that said - octane at default settings isn't at it's fastest, I've learned how to optimize it and get 2x speed up every time, with exact same looks, and it's like 3 settings, they should change those defaults - there's almost the same settings in cycles, but they don't feel to speed up that much, still, similar applies, number of bounced etc will affect the render speeds)
Did u use Octen for blender??
thanks for share. how do you think about fog in blender? i used to vray+maya user. but i think the best quality is vray. but its so fast and comfortable to rend in blender. but, not close with vray.. how do you think about this?
Today my mind just got a strong hit 💪. I am so relaxed and amazed by this person's explanation that is beyond words.
Humm Nicelly Put. thanks for the great job !
Thanks a lot, I am very pleased that you liked the content.
I had no idea Attenborough was into 3d art 🤯
Thanks for the video man, touched on topics that are often overlooked, a wealth of knowledge here.
I'm currently using Blender for a project and it certainly has a default 'look' to it (flat log/materials never look rough enough). Been using my Davinci experience to add a lot of subtle lens and camera defect effects in the compositor, helps to freshen up the renders.
Biggest issue on the project is trying to implement fog volumes, as Cycles slows down to a crawl, and even after all the waiting the fog is noisy but then looks terrible if denoised in a regular way. Have had a lot of success after learning about render layers. My work around is I actually render the fog in Evee and then layer it in later on, there's more control this way too over it's opacity. Only issue is that reflective materials in Cycles don't show any fog in them, so current challenge is to find a fast workaround for this one drawback.
I just wished when I stated learning 3D stuff that the importance of a good final rendering pipeline had come up sooner, I have so many projects with love poured into them that I never had time to render out xD
i strongly agree about fog.
Nice touch with David Attenbot. It added gravitas.
Even a power drill has to be changed from its default settings for common tasks, and they usually only have a trigger, a switch and a dial. Controls take time and work to add to anything, and are only added if users can benefit from manipulating them.
I think Arnold is the best for best quality.
No doubt
Not for all DCC's Arnold for Max sucks. Arnold for Maya, Houdini is good.
@blenderguru did a great job on that video. It's not an easy task comparing renderers that use different algorithms and settings to achieve identical results. With enough tweaking, any good artist can get the desired look. You sometimes can't even tell the difference between Arnold vs Octane vs Vray renders especially in animation/Vfx where motion blur is a MUST.
Speed is essential in production and I don't subscribe to reducing image quality just to have faster renders. So if A can help me achieve the same results as B with significantly less time, why not?
I love Arnold but you mostly have no option than to keep increasing the samples (at the expense of render speed); where as Vray provides the flexibility of working around some of these things. I switched from Arnold to Vray because I'm able to achieve things faster with it. And in my opinion, Vray is currently more than just a renderer.
Great video by the way.
...did you use a deepfake to virtualize David Attenboroughs voice? LOL That is pretty good ngl. haha
Blender + Redshift would be my personal Hero
Do you like redshift more than Cycles?
@@jbdh6510 not really but so many companies out there hire only 3d artists who work with cinema 4d just because of their industry standard thinking. Of course many have a based cinema 4d pipeline but even if they want only one 3d artist for ghe company, they search for someone with cinema 4d skills.
Actually you are 100% correct in this one.
Must give this a like for the intro
I agree with the video, but speed is factor number 1. No one will waste your time and 99% you are doing for ordinary people who spend 2 seconds on the picture with their eyes. It's a business. I will also add that you have to pay for the render
welp, using Twinmotion is a breeze....Reatime render is a perfect client satisfaction!
Beautiful Anas, good luck from her to the top😍😍😍😍😍😍
Thanks a lot Sobhe, hope you are always fine and healthy bro 🌸🌹🌸, and you too from success to success
Andrew Price did an amazing job with that video. He even mentioned that he had to resort to the default settings for all renderers because of how fucking long it would take to figure them all out and how to then make a fair comparison and the fact that if he had to optimise the renderers by tweaking settings, he'd have to sit and spend months doing that for each renderer for every new scene he makes since not every setting is optimal during all circumstances.
I think the default settings show how fast an engine is out of the box. Sure, I can make cycles 999x faster by tweaking some settings which would r*pe every other render engine in the world in terms of speed, quality, denoise performance, colours and everything like that.
I'd like to see you make your own comparison, but you now have to optimise every engine for every new scene and then tell us. Now you have to really git gud with every renderer, seeing how there are MANY people who are infinitely better than you at optimising, so your optimising of the renderer will be picked on thus making your version of Andrew's video void and null. Now you have to start over and get it right, again.
It is impossible to make an accuracy comparison because there are a lot of parameters and variables in render engines, there are some comparison videos on UA-cam about redshift versus Arnold versus corona etc., and the differences in image quality are minimal, and with a simple color edition like contrast, saturation etc in photoshop or even in a simple image viewer, can be exactly, and this take seconds, and now with IA you can rid off any type of noise, so the speed is the only thing that matters, and I think, redshift is the king, you can put two render images in front an 3d expert and didn't know what renderer you used in each.
BlenderGuru made indeed a severe methodology crime in a very irresponsible way.
his intention was very good.
@@rajendrameena150 About Luxcore he rather missed the point completly with bad consequences for the Luxcore community in a much undeserved fashion. So no, no intentions, that's complete unconscious behavior affecting people and professionals.
Yeah who uses default settings 😅
How you did the voice ?
I don't think every render engine has its own way to render, that's not true. At the core almost all path tracers use the same quadratic equations and same trigonometry to render. Optimization on the other hand, that's where different companies have used different tricks to speed up and optimize their render engines. I don't think Cycles has any look for example, the grayish look you get from the filmic color space, if you use ACES or the new color space AGX which was also made by the guy who made filmic then your renders will start to look different. The guy who made cycles used to work for Arnold (solid angle) before Autodesk bought it so he knows them both. And no, speed also matters because of deadlines and turn overs, maybe if you are doing things on your own but speed is very important as well in production because it cost a lot more to render for hours where VFX companies are all about saving money. Octane is made for ease of use and it's great but it lacks the flexibility needed for professional VFX production, it also has a very polished look after rendering which is not always preferred before compositing, if the renders look flat in ACES that's always better in VFX production than rendering with glows and blooms built in. But Octane crashes too much with big scenes and out of core rendering is horrible and it struggles very badly with FOG other than that it's a good render engine that barely fixes the bugs and shows the same tech demo for years in their presentation lol.
I used most of these render engines all of it are good but if you want supreme overall quality I recommend Arnold and RenderMan specially if you have renderfarm or powerful workstation, But If you are independent artist it doesn't really matter just pick the one you're comfortable with like the ones that favor speed, V-Ray, Corona or Octane, Redshift etc . . .
yeah exactly, the best render engine is the one you're productive in, it doesn't actually matter if it takes you two days to render or one hour, if you think you're productive and it works for you.. if you're a pro, you'll always get the same look you want, cause you know what you want to achieve anyway
U are right luxcore behaviour to the light it so amazing i ve never seen like it but slowow
oh dear... you speak so slow!
@WXRTH - i personally felt he speaks so slow and makes me wait for the next words..bit defenitely we can increase playback speed
1.5x speed was needed at least, 2x if caffeinated enough 😆
Lol butt hurt about luxcore results. He explains everything very well in the video that professionals can probably tweak it more and that he's very aware about the margin of error
A material library has nothing to do with a renderer. It might be a bonus gift to a renderer but is in no way coupled to a render engine and therefore the "materials" argument doesn't count imho. And speed makes 80% of the render engine when you render animations. Cause 15min at 30 fps need over 20000 frames and I really don't buy time on a render farm and want to render that thing over night on my PC. Would I accept a 2 hour rendertime if the quality of the images would be superiour? The quality cannot be superiour enough so that I would tolerate 2h of rendertime. I what spheres are you living that a 2 hour rendertime per frame is acceptable time? WHAT THE HELL? I kick every renderengine from my PC that is not capable to render an animation frame with acceptable quality in max. 30 seconds (incl. denoising). WTF ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? The Rendertime PER frame at PIXAR for example lies between 3 and 5 minutes!!! For Toy Story 1 Pixar accepted NO rendertime above 3min per Frame.
Octane's defaults are not even close to usable settings. Otoy does not do a lot of default setups in its tools. It's weird but a fact.