Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RustyAce

V-Ray for C4d

Recommended Posts

Hey has anyone given this a try...not the stand alone version but the one built as the c4d render client. Is it that much better then Advanced render, as far as render times, net render compatibility, look etc. I'm just looking for someone who has had a good/bad experience with it. Beyond the promotion material so to speak.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you are doing i guess.I don't recommend it for general motion graphics. it's harder to get the nifty little tricks that AR3 allows for. volumetric lights, better multipass renders, glow effects, etc. You can exclude things from reflecting other things, and all that fun stuff.

 

but for 3d animation that's fairly real, it's a must have in many ways. It's pretty much all i use. The advantages are speed for GI lit environments with lots of blurred reflections. Better/faster displacement. Much more powerful material channels. real specular. Real DOF. And lighting scenes in Vray is a breeze. Compared to c4d, it's almost push button.

 

Vray is very easy to learn if you already know c4d. the materials are very very similar. in general any material just has a diffuse channel (color channel) and a specular channel which has like 2 settings which you generally need to work with.

 

camera just needs a camera tag if you want it to look best.

 

lights need a light tag.

 

easy peasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a job late last year that involved lots of renders of an 'iPad-like' device, which included some very fine reflective metal grilles either side of the screen. I cranked up the settings in AR to insane levels, trying to get this grille to render cleanly but there was a constant battle with flickering & black spots in animation. Also the flat black areas of the device suffered banding, as did the area shadows, and the subtle bump was turned to mush. The client was concerned about getting their product looks as good as possible, obviously, so we gave VRay a run and once I'd got my head around the AA options it was leagues ahead in every way. The tiny details were impeccable, colours stayed rich and the bump looked great. Render times were slightly faster but not significantly.

 

I've used it since then when I can but like Joe says it's got specific strengths in photorealism and GI. One area where it never fails to surprise me is the way that extremely fine details stay solid and clean, where I'm used to any fine lines flickering away in Cinema.

 

The materials are fairly straightforward, but the rendering options are not - they're extensive and still quite intimidating to be honest.

 

But the results are worth it so it's recommended if that's the sort of thing you're into.

 

Cheers - Chris

 

Hey has anyone given this a try...not the stand alone version but the one built as the c4d render client. Is it that much better then Advanced render, as far as render times, net render compatibility, look etc. I'm just looking for someone who has had a good/bad experience with it. Beyond the promotion material so to speak.

 

cheers

Edited by ChrisC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah rendering options can be daunting especially if you are trying to fine tune an animation and get render times down. it's an artform. not my specialty.

 

However, in general for stills and if you just want to render something and not worry too much about fine tuning, it's as simple as 1 button. Turn on GI, and off you go. you don't technically have to mess with anything.

 

There are some great step by step pinned discussions from Strat at the vrayforc4d forum which are very easy to follow. newest vrays keep getting better at setting things up for you.

 

if you have the render time on your side, there are options where you don't need a prepass at all. you just crank the settings up per Strat's tutorial, and off you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN general for "mography" looking stuff, AR is easiest to jump straight into. However anything that is supposed to be remotely "filmic" I use Vray. It's fast, looks beautiful, no excuses. AR seems to be catching up in the last few releases though (LWF, Glossy reflections, bucket rendering, better GI). If they can stay on coarse adding more stuff then it will be a viable contender some day i reckon. The last few jobs though I tried again to do tests between the two because I really would love to just keep it simple and go AR but each time Vray proves it's the one to use for more complex, photoreal jobs. But the gap is getting more narrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm genuinely surprised to hear how many people seem to be doing photoreal work here, as it seems to be an entire other industry to me and the few jobs that would require an expensive third-party renderer wouldn't pay enough to justify the expense.

 

I'm really curious, more to fill the gaps in my knowledge more than anything else, but I omitted from posting these kinds of questions here as I thought most people on Mograph specialised in plasticky 3D with GI reflections :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm genuinely surprised to hear how many people seem to be doing photoreal work here, as it seems to be an entire other industry to me

 

We don't personally do a ton, but when we do turnkey jobs and include 3D, it usually needs to be as real as we can make it in the time and money we have.

 

HERE is a few spots I put together that use Vray in C4D. The back half of the Bridgestone spot with the rolling tires and everything in the TIRERACK spots that isn't the chick is VRAY. Me, Sebastien "Fluffy" Florand , and Govinda did the Tire Rack stuff, and Me and Sebastien did the Bridgestone Tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm genuinely surprised to hear how many people seem to be doing photoreal work here, as it seems to be an entire other industry to me and the few jobs that would require an expensive third-party renderer wouldn't pay enough to justify the expense.

 

I'm really curious, more to fill the gaps in my knowledge more than anything else, but I omitted from posting these kinds of questions here as I thought most people on Mograph specialised in plasticky 3D with GI reflections :P

 

I think this generalized thinking was more spot on a number of years ago, but now that 3D has become ingrained as a major part of the mograph work flow, photorealism becomes that lofty goal to achieve. Plus being able to do crazy moves with a device that looks like it's been filmed can have a really surrealistic style to it. I am rendering iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches everyday and always trying to find more ways to make them look as real as possible. I have also been interested in other renders to give the products I work on that added level of realism because I feel like there is a tiny bit of a CG look to everything I create in C4D with the built-in renderer, plus our aluminum texture is a bitch to nail.

 

On a side note...have any of you tried fryrender? The images I have seen make it look out of this world! Anybody like to share? http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=930446

 

sureMOE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm genuinely surprised to hear how many people seem to be doing photoreal work here, as it seems to be an entire other industry to me and the few jobs that would require an expensive third-party renderer wouldn't pay enough to justify the expense.

 

I'm really curious, more to fill the gaps in my knowledge more than anything else, but I omitted from posting these kinds of questions here as I thought most people on Mograph specialised in plasticky 3D with GI reflections :P

 

Well, in my case I'm not much of a motion graphics guy. i can't use AE much beyond basic compositing. I do 90% still renderings, and 10% animation, and the animation is full 3d animation typically.

 

One of these days i will invest in learning AE more. sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vray is stressful to work with due to some idiosyncrasies.

 

AR is getting there with Linear workflow.

 

Fry render looks good but those images look photo-shopped.

 

Maxwell looks amazing for photo realisim.

 

I have seen some great renders coming out of mental Ray recently. It seems to have a nice balance between photo real and flexibility for artistic touches that are difficult with Vray.

 

Anyone here using Render Man?

Edited by shmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine is a renderman shader TD, Renderman is not something you tackle without expert knowledge on board. You'll need shaderwritrs and people that can help you set up/manage your pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to start tooling around in Maya again pretty soon for an online course I'm gonna take, and that lead me to this: https://renderman.pixar.com/products/tools/rfm.html

 

Anyone used it? Is it really as easy as they make it sound on the site? Would be pretty awesome if so... and only $300 more than vray for a licence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you suggest any good resources for building a better understanding of VRay AA for animation?

 

Well the manual's not too shabby, the low-down seems to be DMC for high-detail stuff or where there's traditionally lots of noise, like blurry reflections etc, and adaptive AA for everything else.

 

The difference is, in my not so extensive experience, that once you get the settings right for a decent and not too sharp/blurry still, then the animation you render will also be rock solid. This is in contrast to CInema where the settings that work fine for frames can turn an animation into a jittery mess of vibrating lines and flickering pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...