Page 4 of 4
Re: "52Hz" / Octane 3.0 Scene
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:01 pm
by WalterSulivan
well , Image is perfect but )) your time 50 hour ruins all my expectations towards octane
why this took so long time...? I understand 8000x4000 is a big image but what if 1920x1080 (( in 50hrs this could be done with renderman or vray or
with corona maybe even 10 times faster
Re: "52Hz" / Octane 3.0 Scene
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:56 pm
by andrey.krivulya
Amazing stuff! Very cool work! I'm impressed! Congrats!
Re: "52Hz" / Octane 3.0 Scene
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:29 pm
by blobbybarack
Super rad
Re: "52Hz" / Octane 3.0 Scene
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:39 am
by Elvissuperstar007
WalterSulivan wrote:well , Image is perfect but )) your time 50 hour ruins all my expectations towards octane
why this took so long time...? I understand 8000x4000 is a big image but what if 1920x1080 (( in 50hrs this could be done with renderman or vray or
with corona maybe even 10 times faster
one frame in the animation took 5 minutes and 40 hours was rendered version with fog in the resolution of 8K, I would not be so sure. that the crown or rendermen fog will render faster
Re: "52Hz" / Octane 3.0 Scene
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:48 am
by zomtech
WalterSulivan wrote:well , Image is perfect but )) your time 50 hour ruins all my expectations towards octane
why this took so long time...? I understand 8000x4000 is a big image but what if 1920x1080 (( in 50hrs this could be done with renderman or vray or
with corona maybe even 10 times faster
all the engines you name are biased (or have both biased and unbiased options.
octane is a pathtracer (unbiased), if you want to compare it to vray you'd compare it to fog rendered in BR/BR and no interpolation at all.
I doubt that there's any cpu based pathtracer that could render real volumetric fog faster.
it simply is the fog.... fog does take very long.