Very good points made. Yes, there was no color in the scenes shown above. But that was not the point, the point was to show how well each renderer handled light, and light bounce. This is what really gives the "Photoreal" Look. Yes, color is a big part, and how that color is bounced is also very important, but many feels, just like the guy who made the video, that how the light is bounced is more important, so that if what he focused on. Also, the main point of the whole thing was to show how similar each renderer is. Yes, Arnold if better in stands for structure, flexibility, and reliability. But there is no way around it, it is still much slower then octane for the cost. The point the guy in the video was trying to state, is to show how our bias gets in the way. Fandom and bias really get heavy when you are trying to buy a render engine. Let me state, there is nothing wrong with loving your renderer, It great! I love octane! and I'm biased towards it, I'm human, there is no way around that. Just like other users love Arnold, and are biased towards that. But it's important to only talk about the facts, and look at true comparison when selling your renderer to others. This is because I don't want to give miss information to a new Users who are looking to buy a renderer. I don't want a guy who uses hair, x-particles, and fire volumes to go out and buy octane. This would just not work out. Octane does not handle hair that well. Yes it can do it, and it looks amazing, but you're limited to your controls. Such as only being able to change the color of the whole hair, and not the roots or the tips of the hair. Reversely, I don't want a new user who is looking for a renderer that will let them get photoreal, and at the same time speed up there work. If this user has a single 4 core CPU, they will find that Arnold is actually slower then the standard C4D Physical renderer, because you can get away without Global illumination in Physical a lot. Sure it won't looks as nice, but it's still very very close. I don't want a user to drop $800 on Arnold just to the find that their render times are longer, because they're using global illumination, and now there render times are longer, and their work looks even worse now because they can't afford that much render time. Yes, you can turn the global illumination off in Arnold, but the point of getting it was to make your renders look better, witch octane can and does do, in much less time then Physical. Inform people with the facts about each renderer, let them make a there choice based on there needs. No one is better than the other, they are just different. Yes, some are better at somethings compared to the other, they all have Pro's and Con's, figure out with one has the most pro's for you and your lifestyle

You may also like

Back to Top