Page 2 of 3

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:41 pm
by aoktar
Macurt wrote:Thank you Aoktar!

Is there a demo version of V3 for C4D on osx?? Would love to try.
No. It's alpha and available for V2 customers.

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:32 am
by brasco
Seekerfinder wrote:Very interesting.... Anyone know what's up with the black refraction in Arnold?
Seeker
Image
This setting from the Arnold Sky will most likely be disabled in that example.

cheers
brasc

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:49 am
by Seekerfinder
brasco wrote:
Seekerfinder wrote:Very interesting.... Anyone know what's up with the black refraction in Arnold?
Seeker
Image
This setting from the Arnold Sky will most likely be disabled in that example.

cheers
brasc
Ok, thanks brasco. Would that add even more time for Arnold?

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:40 pm
by Macurt
brasco wrote:
Seekerfinder wrote:Very interesting.... Anyone know what's up with the black refraction in Arnold?
Seeker
Image
This setting from the Arnold Sky will most likely be disabled in that example.

cheers
brasc

You're absolutely right, it was disabled. Here is another render that took 15 minutes.
7_Arnold_15min.jpg

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:50 pm
by Seekerfinder
Wow. Octane at 55 sec looks better than Arnold at 15 mins. And still that dark section in Arnold. Wonder which is more physically accurate.
Seeker

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
by aoktar
I may think to archive this thread. For me best point is that and speed/quality in Octane. As you can see Arnold and Octane is very similar on many aspects. Also physical render is a bit similar but not completely. It's hard to produce really realistic results in that. Btw, I think people mostly forgets that how much optimisations doing in other renderers to get fine renders. I hope they don't quickly judge the everythings in life as doing to against Octane.

I'm not targetting the Macurt, just using this opportunity to say my feeling and stance for general behaviour of people which try to make decisions without testing or knowing enough.

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:22 pm
by KonstantinosD
well it took 31 sec in mine..
Capture.JPG

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:37 pm
by Macurt
KonstantinosD wrote:well it took 31 sec in mine..
Well you got triple Titan Xs so... :)

@Aoktar: feel free to archive if you want. I agree with you that I'm no master at either renderer, but as I said in a previous post, I didn't optimize in neither so it's a quick and dirty test of what one might expect out of the box.

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:17 pm
by uncia
This all you need to know ;)
P.s. Arnold is mighty but really slow
arnold_dragon_tets.jpg
Octane_dragon_tets.jpg

Re: Octane vs. Arnold vs. Physical Render in C4D

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:32 pm
by Macurt
Uncia - would you mind sharing the scene files? I'd like to try what you did on my machine. Noticed you're on PC, can't help but think that speed might be a PC/Mac issue as well.

Thanks