I wish

[sjh1]

Sorry didn't know were to post this request.
I need, to prove too the powers that be, that we need v-ray, so could you please, send me a picture created in cinema 4d AR current one, and then the same file rendered in v-ray for c4d, also any outstanding reasons why we should change.

I hope this isn't to much trouble.

Many thanks

Steven

[glass.use]

see for yourself ;) check out some of the members work at wip and user gallery section, theres a topic with small comparison
http://www.forum.vrayforc4d.com/viewtopic.php?t=143

[sjh1]

Thanks for the link you sent, but the pictures missing only boxes with ? in them.
i have seen the gallery and the picture from you and the others are great but i need the comparison to indicate how much better vray is.

[glass.use]

ah, sorry your right i think vic have removed them from his server.
i will try to do a comparison soon :wink:
just need some time :oops:

and trust me Vic comparison, vray is better as you can see the comments ; )

[sjh1]

thanks glass.use
greatly appreciated
so eggier to get on and start using it.

[blewis]

Here is the closed I could come up with.
I too have just moved to Vray and a new to it but its cool!
I had an old Kitchen file which I rendered with Cinema 4D Raytracing NOT GI. So I cracked it open and hit him with 1 hour of work in Vray.
http://www.eyescreamanimation.com/transfer/Kitchen_cin_RT.jpg
and in Vray (still could use some work!)
http://www.eyescreamanimation.com/transfer/Kitchen_vray1hr_work.jpg
Its not GI to GI but trust me I never bothered with Cinema GI, I tried Final Render for almost 2 years and we are already further along with Vray in 1 month than both renders! Get it.

[STRAT]

the first image is much nicer

[rikky]

I disagree STRAT. I think the second one has better lighting and is less "harsh" for shadowing. I think that the vray version really needs some work on the texturing. Most of the bump maps are too "deep". I think the coloring in the vray version is also nearer to realism. IMHO.

[rikky]

blewis: Have you used sub-pixel in color mapping? If not, you should. Bumps are too noticable on the floor, fridge, cooker and worktop. I think with a bit of tidying up, this image could be vastly improved. Should take 30 mins or so. IMHO.

[STRAT]

I disagree STRAT. I think the second one has better lighting and is less "harsh" for shadowing. I think that the vray version really needs some work on the texturing. Most of the bump maps are too "deep". I think the coloring in the vray version is also nearer to realism. IMHO.

i didn't say 'better', i said 'nicer', which is subjective of course :)

[Tong]

STRAT
can you say why?

[blewis]

Thanks guys, but the point was that in only 1 hour I could move a project from AR raytaced only to completely re lit and re textured for GI in Vray.
I know this image can still use loads of work.
I could not do this in Final Render or Maxwell.
And a 4 minute render time is not bad at all.

I think I will continue to refine the image and get back to you with a 'great version'
Too much bump? Yes I will fix it all._B

[STRAT]

yup :)

this image obviously isn't striving for photorealism, but more a contemporary or 'nice rendered image' feel.

It sells the image much better to me; the 'harsh' shadowing and AO feel gives a lovely contrast to the image and a light airy feel. details are perceived better, there's a depth of lighting and a vibrancy to the colouration. reminds me of a 'toy story' style render.

The second image no way represents what vray can do, (i appreciate the chap's a vray n00b still), and for a non-gi ray traced render the first is a good representation of what basic cinema can do.

The second image's lighting is dreadful. it's flat, over lit and misleading. it's almost evening lighting, yet there's a mid tone blue outside and weak sunlight coming in.

purely as they stand, in my humble professional opinion, the first image is what i'd put on my wall.

:)

[blewis]

Wow strat credit to good old raytrace!
I will fix the GI

[STRAT]

hey, i'm a massive old fashioned AR fan, and will forever champion it's side :)

it's a fantastic tool that still hold's it's own in the hands of an artist who can use it correctly. He's a quick image i rendered recently in the AR with NO gi.

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cgt/cga3.jpg

not photoreal, but can still give a pleasing representation imo

[blewis]

It renders fast, predictable, easy to active object texture map and dependable. Yep I love it too.

I always wanted to step up to GI, but if it can't animate without flickering, I couldn't use it. I can't have my clients have stills in GI but animation in Ray Trace. Vray is the platform where I am finally ready because it seems to be 'welcoming' to do what ever I need to do with GI.

[rikky]

STRAT I too like AR, but if I wanted to create something that looks very real I usually need to enable AR GI. This is incredibly slow and takes alot of time to get right. I think Maxon should have checked the default settings as they are not the most optimized for most scenes. I think diffuse level should be 1 by default, high accuracy (95%+) and a mid range set of samples. This renders faster than the defaults and is more accurate, as opposed to their diffuse level of 3, lowish accuracy and low samples.

I think AR is good and fast with plastics and environmental mats but I find it's metal and organics take render time to max and you don';t get quite waht you want. Maybe I use AR completely wrong and that is why I get bad results. I love the Sketch and Toon though, it is a clever way to get a completely different look.

AR rules with hair.

Now I'm ranting. :D

[blewis]

Yep, RT is fast, dependable, easy to test render 1 object at a time and predictable.

I look forward to joining the GI crew though. Since Vray for Cinema has come out, I have seen better images than ever before made in cinema 4d.
I do think that our App is finally going to shine with the rest of the big boys again!

[STRAT]

yes, to create photoreal in the AR you need to put a fair bit of time and effort into it. you dont need ultra high gi settings, but you need the 'extras' that go with it, like ao, reflectance, ambient lights, infill lights etc etc. This is where the time and skill comes in.

The AR is a joy to work in, but, unlike vray which is more on par to give the average user decent results without too much technical or artistic knowledge, in the AR you must work at it and craft it. it'll reward you well.

Rikky - sounds like, as you mention, you're AR gi optimising skills could do with some work ;)

Blewis - you can get completely flicker free gi animations in the AR. There's just certain areas you must be aware of first before you go ahead with your rendering.

[blewis]

Flicker free GI in AR? Where have you been for the past 5 years? How?

You know what, actually, I'm good, I don't even want to know. Vray is it. Its antialiasing alone is worth the effort. I'm done raytracing. Lets move on.

[STRAT]

Flicker free GI in AR? Where have you been for the past 5 years? How?

You know what, actually, I'm good, I don't even want to know.

you mean where have you been? fair doos, i wont tell you then :P



I'm done raytracing. Lets move on.

again, fair comment, but i personally wouldn't write it off until you've tried it. AR gi is considerably different to vray, and suits different styles and rendering better than vray. in certain areas it's faster too (ie, AA)

[blewis]

I think that cinema 4d has been held back by its renderer in many ways. I have used it to fair results for almost 6 years now. I have always found that the anti aliasing is poor. To get great results you really have to force it and the render time shoots up rediculously.
In come cases I cannot get Cin AR to anti alias properly today. (through transparant objects, even in best antialiasing mode)
I just find that Vray's images look sharper and more perfect than any image that I have ever seen in AR in the past. We have always been good but now we can be great!

[STRAT]

In come cases I cannot get Cin AR to anti alias properly today. (through transparant objects, even in best antialiasing mode)

fix - assign a comping tag to your glass object, and force AA in it to min 2x2 max 4x4



I just find that Vray's images look sharper and more perfect than any image that I have ever seen in AR in the past. We have always been good but now we can be great!

again, matter of opinion. In my own opinion here, i've rendered images off in the AR that i know i couldn't better in vray if i tried my hardest.

[blewis]

OK Strat you can't claim that you have a super hot image from AR and not post it. The excitment is killing us all. Lets see it

[rikky]

Its at the bottom of page one of this thread. I think that's the one he meant.

[STRAT]

no no, i know vray could top that obviously. thats only an AR non-gi scanline render.

And far from claiming to have done any super hot imagery, i'm just saying the AR can easily equal vray in certain areas with used to it's extents.

these two images demonstrate that i think. they're far from perfect, but if i took these scenes and 'vrayed' them up i'm sure they'd look no better as far as lighting and realism is concerned.

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cgt/001.jpg

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cgt/002.jpg

i appreciate vray is more flexible and gives enhanced material manipulation, but there's limits. To say you cant better vray is a foolish pastime imo.

i have other examples i wont post, but lets just get a perspective

[rikky]

Not trying to start an argument, but even though vray may not be able to improve vastly on the quality of those images, I would be very intrigued to know how quickly vray would have been able to reproduce them. I bet AR took a lengthy time to complete these images.

Maxon once released an interior office scene with a couple of chairs (in the demonstration files) which used GI. This was very simple scene but I remember that it took about 15 mins to render a single gi pass. Vray would have done it in seconds.

[STRAT]

Not trying to start an argument, but even though vray may not be able to improve vastly on the quality of those images, I would be very intrigued to know how quickly vray would have been able to reproduce them. I bet AR took a lengthy time to complete these images.

Maxon once released an interior office scene with a couple of chairs (in the demonstration files) which used GI. This was very simple scene but I remember that it took about 15 mins to render a single gi pass. Vray would have done it in seconds.

there's no doubting the speed advantages and ease of use using vray :)