Finalrender stage 1 v Vray

[Da_elf]

long john. i was around as one of the 1st beta testers. i cant be sure how long it was in the works. but i remember the 1st version of vray. i probably still have it on disk somewhere. But i do remember when displacement was introduced. and sure there have been some updates. but honestly it wasnt that much worked on since its introduction. It was awsome from the start.

[GoncaloP]

A slow one with Daylight System



Settings



Gonçalo

[GoncaloP]

Settings (Cont.)



Gonçalo

[brittnell]

Hello,

First thing I would say is that in order to have a fair comparison, you should turn on AA in the fR render dialog (there's a check-box that is off by default).

It is obvious from the jaggies in your renders that it is either off, or is seriously out of whack.

I also assume that you've had more time to find optimizations and the best settings with the greater amount of time you've been using Vray...

I got [Stage-1] the day it went live, and am just begining to get a grasp on all the possible configurations and optimizations.

This is definitely a RTFM app (all 376 pages of it), and I am skeptical about your ability to do that properly enough in the last 72 hours to make an informed, and thus relevant, comparison.

Cheers,

Brittnell

[Long John]

but we are working on it.

[restoeboemi]

Gonçalo, r u using vray skylight together with max skylight?

[GoncaloP]

Not really know what it does thought...

Gonçalo

[Bolteon]

britt...

in the case of my 2 comparisons i've done as best as i could for vray and the fR scene used in one that comes off of the fR cd... now if the actual scenes that come from cebas aren't optimized to hell then i don't know what can be....

my settings? vray dis mod got pretty low settings (128 rez... some as low as 8 for the small acorn) some pretty low GI (-3 / -2) and low AA (-1 / 1) yet it made for a great image in the end.

[brittnell]

Hey Bolteon,

Sorry about that, it was my mistake in not directing my post to PENdzel's examples, which were actually the ones I had most issue with (esp. regarding AA).

As for your example, huh, I dunno... I'm going to open the scene and have a look at it myself.

That said... At the end of the day, it's the work you create that matters most, not the tools you used to get there.

Whatever floats your boat...

-edit-
I opened the original fR scene used by PENdzel... Not sure why he changed the bounce number to 10 (opens at 4), but that may be a contributing factor in why the fR version seem so much brighter, and "blown out" (plus the obviously off AA). I'll post a render with times/settings in a sec...

-edit- -edit-
PENdzel's and mine (using settings I have when I open the scene... can't say what happened with his).

2:06 Minutes / AMD XP 2800+ / 1.5gb RAM
Much closer to the VRAy example, and with a more realistic render time...
That said, If I were to create settings for this from scratch (as must have been done with the VRay example), there are some things I'd definitely change for the better.

[3dform]

HEY!!!

if you compare Pictures you have to enable AA in both!

it's totaly unfair to disable AA in the FR picture and then tell it's fast!

Stage 1 is as far as I tested extremly slow on doing AntiAliasing. While Vray is extremly good in this.

Ok, that's all...

robert

[Da_elf]

Hey Bolteon,

That said... At the end of the day, it's the work you create that matters most, not the tools you used to get there.

Im not entirely sure what industry you work in. But i have this thing called deadlines. If one package gets me great results in as fast a time as i can get then at the end of the day it is the tools that matter. Seeing as how im not going to take my monitor over to a client to show him the product stuck half way through rendering. Because at that point...there is no "work" to matter.
I know what your trying to say that people should learn to model better, light better, texture better and animate better. However. Once you have reached that level where your good at that. then it is indeed your tools that matter.

[j.galang]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but from what's happening here I decided I would. Here are some points:

1. We should stop this thread very soon, i do believe that comparing renderers is OK but IMHO it should be done with the outmost care and impartiality AND by someone who has the experience and the knowledge to back up his results. The scene shown here i feel is much too simple and there are too many things wrong with the test. From settings being way too different to AA, its not a very methodical test so the results are invalid.

2. This forum has always been a generally very pleasant one compared to uh, um... other forums. Lets try to keep it that way.

3. Let renderings speak for themselves. In the next few months fR-1 images will start popping out and I am eager to see for myself the results that they claim they can produce. I occasionally browse the fR forums (both public and private) and I judge the images and keep my opinions to myself. I for one have used fR-0 since our office has all 3 renderers (brazil, fR, vRay). I have done work with all three of them but for the majority Vray was used.

JG

[TRGraphics]

Da_elf hit the nail on the head, I think. The tools do matter if your trying to make a living at this trade. Speed is very important, almost as important as the quality of the images. For example, if my competition can put out 2 renders to my one with the same quality for a deadline project, which one do you think will get the job?

How many times has a client said that they need the render now, even if you have to sacrifice quality a little, they just want it now, now, now.

The quality of a finished image is about your experience and talent as an artist, but it's also about your technical skills with the software, as well. If you don't understand this, you should probably look into a new line of work.

I would like to see two qualified artist render the exact same scene with the goal of the best quality they can achieve, no matter what the settings are for each package. It really does not matter what the settings are for each, just that the finished render is the best they can do.

With this in mind , then we should look at the render times and set up times to truly judge the performance of each product.

Any volunteers?

[brittnell]

Well, I don't think it's an "industry/trade" issue, or lack of "understanding the business".

If you're curious, I use my real name, and actually have a link in my sig, from whence you can click "who" for more info.

As to "the fastest renderer for the quality gets the work"... Well, that's a tad simplistic (from my experience).

Usually, it's almost equally about the sales team, pre-existing client relationships, budget, body of work, and quality-to-speed ratio.

As is, we've yet to be held back by a renderer.

Despite the quirks/shortcomings of just about every application I've used, there is almost always some way to circumvent/cheat it.

Also, I guess I've just gotten a bit frustrated (don't ask me why ) by all the bad images and "bug reports" that are floating around, and invariably make me say:

1) C'mon now, you know you can do better than that...
or
2) Jeez, I've been at this a long time, and don't feel I can totally understand all the new parameters in the last 72 hours, how can you?

To top it off, this never comes from anyone posting in the fR registered users forum (for some reason), and just as rarely from anyone with any studio information in their profile/sig.

It just makes it difficult for me to give the claim/examples any weight.

In regards to your proposed benchmark/quality test, I think it's the best idea, however, I suspect that the level of expertise between the two artists will still be the weak link and would likely be up to question no matter what (expertise being varied and somewhat subjective).

I'd take you up on it, but am honestly too swamped to do it justice (will be through at least the end of September).

Oh, and... Whatever floats your boat/keeps your baby in shoes.

In other words, this is just as silly as "MAX SUCKS, MAYA RULEZ!", and I bet we share similar feelings over that discussion.


Cheers,

Brittnell

[TRGraphics]

brittnell

Please don't take my post as directed toward you. it was not. I to get very tired of the endless comparisons of FR and vray just as you do when it's not done fairly to both products. I can say this as a fact, there is no way I could compare the two, I have never used F/R and I could not learn the program well enough in a week or even a month to give a fair comparison with a program I have used for a long time. Thats why any comparison should be done with the experts of each program. By the way, I don't consider myself an expert with vray, still learning I'm afraid. But there are many on this forum that are.

I personally don't have a thing against F/R or it's users. I believe the choice by an individual or company as to which product they will use is done with a fair amount of research into which product will work the best for them, and their particular needsn, not mine.

When I talked about being able to do two renders to one, I was thinking of cost to the client. You should be able to charge less if you can do the job faster without the need to buy more rendering equipment to do it. I should have been more detailed in my comment.

I truly believe that we are above all the name calling that seems to be everywhere today on the net and lets just enjoy the product that we choose as our renderer.

I hope that they all get better and better as time passes.

Competition is a very good thing, at least for us, the consumer!

Tony