Vray vs Fry

[visumporec]

I made this just for fun...
This is an old scene that i made with vray 1.5 RC4 and now is with 1.50.00.
First image - vray 64 bit 1.50.00. SP1 settings:
No sun, just Dome light with HDRI map with couple of vray sphere lights, ADMC, Bruteforce 20 sub, LC 1500, Noise thresh 0.007, gl.sub.mult. 4.
Render time for 2000x1333 px was 3h 30min. Post work - only glow on the lamp and candel

The second image is done using Fry render 64 bit and I must say that i am not Fry expert because this is my first try and some of the materials could be better ...
No sun, use environment mapping with HDRI map - IBL + couple of light emitters
Fry 64 bit take 13h to render (over night) 2000x1333 image and is without post work

Dual Xeon X5365 8Gb ram, Max 9 64 bit, XP 64

Vray image



Fry image


Alex

[percydaman]

wow, well done. I would actually say I like the fry render better for the most part. There are areas that the vray looks better, but not as many as the fry.

[mdi]

3 hours vray....or 13 hours fry......


I like the vray one without knowing which the vray one is

[bardo]

with a warmer light colour and a warmer colorbalance you can obtain the same image.

and if you wanna check before deadline in the same time you can make 3 images vs 1..so..you have the possibility to make 3 high-res tests.

and with fry...if you fail something...you must invoke Saint Photoshop.

[Neilg]

I think we're at the point where the better image isnt a result of software, but of desired style and skill/approach by the artist.

The colours are nicer on fry, but thats irrelevant, and its a bit more photographic (DOF?), but vray is really clean/sharp and quite illustrative. None of those contribute to a be-all and end-all 'better' result.

[dellis]

I think if the materials were a bit closer...particularly reflective objects you would see more similarity. And it looks like image sampling is alot different as well. Overall pretty cool though...i like them both for different reasons. Great comparison...

[Aldaryn]

Interesting comparison, but like the others said, it's more like comparing your scene setup skills in the different environments, rather than comparing the two renderers. By the way, apart from light temperature, you did a very good job, especially if this is one of your first frys.

You didn't mention DOF on the VRay image, and since its an option, I suppose you left it off. If you've got another few spare cpu hours, you might want to give it a go with DOF turned on, I think that would fix the sharp look.

Also note, the fry one has visibly more image noise.

Another interesting test would be to save the vray render in hdr, apply it on a plane, turn off filter, and render it with fry (I think this is the only way to get your vray render data into fry's framebuffer, there is no load image option directly) just to apply fry's lens simulation functions (glare, diffraction) so the post work on both images could be the same.

best regards,

A.

[percydaman]

you should try a ppt version in vray and post it.

[visumporec]

Thanks quys for comments...
Yes, the vray one is without the dof, I'll make another with it.
I dont want to compare this two render engine. It is just another way to create images. Like a cubiclegangster said its deppend of skill and approach by the artist.

Aldaryn: Yes, its really my first fry image because all my system are 64 bit so I'll been waiting 64 bit fry...
It is very interesting what you said about vray hdri into fry's framebuffer. I'll try it...

I'll create another vray one with ppt and dof enabled for the render time of fry - 13h

[^Lele^]

I'll create another vray one with ppt and dof enabled for the render time of fry - 13h

I don't know about fry, but you might be able to set vray up so that it matches the exact number of shading passes as fry (eg. 100), rather than matching time and estimating the noise.
Use the LC/PPT calc for that.