I wanted to share some experimentation I did with Octane, Arnold and Physical render in Cinema 4D on osx. The point is not to compare which renderer is "the best", or most photorealistic, but more from a pragmatic pov, what kind of quality I could get in any amount of time. The test is not "correct" in any way, it's just a simple scene in which I tried to replicate the settings, light intensities, dof etc. My specs are in my signature.
The first one is C4D's native Physical render. The render took 15 minutes. I used GI with low settings, and Sampling quality set to High. The graininess is minimal, the gradients are smooth, it's totally production worthy. However, the bokeh is very unsexy! I couldn't get any decent bloom, however much I turned up the intensity of the lights.
The second one is Octane. The render took 26 minutes. I used the Directlighting method with enough samples to get up to 26 minutes. The bokeh in this one is my favorite, like a real camera would produce. Although some parts are smooth, the background lights are really grainy and not production ready at all, for a render that took almost twice as long as the Physical render.
The third one is Arnold. The render took 22 minutes. The lights in the background are arranged slightly differently, but with enough similarity to do a comparison. The bokeh is nice, but the dof is super grainy. Not anywhere near production ready.
The fourth one is also Arnold, cranked up to 2 hours and 15 minutes. Some parts are really smooth, but the background lights are still too grainy. Still not production ready!
What's your take on this? What kind of hardware setup does one need to be able to use Octane effectively for animation? To use Arnold effectively?
