I’m still early on in my quest to achieve photo realism, and I understand that is a combination of many crucial skills (modeling, texturing, lighting just to name a few.)
That said, I’ve seen several people around the web assert that you need vray for professional, photo-real results in C4d. Is this true? Are there results you can get with vray that are “ungettable” with the advanced renderer in c4d and the new physical camera? Or, combined with a compositing program and artistry can top level photorealism be achieved with the current C4d tool set?
Vray is an incredible piece of software and if you are serious about rendering I would recommend it highly.
This is in no way a slight against the performance and quality of the material that can come out of the native render engine, but Vray has 1 job to do…and there isn’t a lot out there for C4D that will do that job better.
There definitely are competitors in the market, like mentalray, final render, and more, but Vray has a solid track record and great support.
The key really is what do you want?
Vray means taking the time to learn the ins and outs of a whole new piece of software (which is worth it), but it might not be worth your time if you are getting what you need.
My best advice would be to head over to the vray for c4d forums and check it out. I’m sure if you contact sales there they would be more than happy to help.
Thanks, Patrick. It might sound silly, but a part of me just hopes that as my skills grow, so will he rendering capabilities of C4D
However, it does seem that what you’re saying is that if the goal is to produce true commercial-quality or feature-quality results, staying in Cinema 4d native is NOT the way to go, correct? I will definitely head over to the vray for c4d forums, too.
As your skills grow you will certainly find ways to continue to expand the quality of results you can get with the native render engine.
So NO you do not “need” Vray to produce true commercial or feature quality results.
You still need to know the same sorts of things about surface properties, lighting, environments, etc.
The big thing is Vray is faster, faster means more iterations, more iterations means more chances to try different settings.
But that is still a generalization, because without knowing the system you can also produce “bad” results.
My advice is if it’s in your budget pull the trigger, if not you’ll still be plenty happy with AR.
Check out the list that I picked up from the MAXON website.
I think (without using them myself anymore, I’m getting what I need in C4D, even owning a couple licenses) that each render has a preference or follower ship in a certain field. Some are more in “Film Studios” at home, some are more used in Motion Graphics and other have a strong sympathy in the Architectural Visualization, etc. I found that people who use only 1 or 2 of them are heavily biased (sorry folks, admit this finally once and forever, and get over it ;o), so take any suggestion with a grain of salt and focus on the field they are working in!!! Ask for results that people got with “their” renderer, which is finally all what counts. I haven’t met anyone who really knows all of them “in and out”, but yes several are built on similar concepts, BTW. There are some stunning results from any of these renders available, based on their fields. ... and no, I do not discuss this theme anymore, I know that I do not know them all together well enough to do so. Anything else is not really my cup of tea, will say not professional.
I think we at Cineversity should be more or less neutral anyway in such things. :o) Will say: here is the list. Please fill in any that I missed, I trust MAXON’s website to get this done completely, here will be soon a new one to add anyway, VUE user know what I have in mind. (Of course, the list would be longer if you take all stand alone renderer as well.)
I know questions like these are hard to answer, and I appreciate you taking the time to steer me in the right direction. Knowing great images can be achieved with AR3 alone is helpful. I believe once I move beyond the basics the points Patrick made about faster render times and more iterations make vray more attractive for “pro” work. But as you point out Sassi, makes a lot of sense to go ask people who are using the many different renderers. I plan on following through with that.
I can’t stress enough that the post processing is an important part in the production pipeline. There are several things that I found needs an artist and can’t be done with software alone. Take Color Correction/Grading alone. This is not only a field for feature films anymore. The tools are easily available - hence even DaVinci Resolve (as software) is now below $1K! (that is the top quality you can ask for!) I do not talk about the few tweaks that most people do from time to time. I talk about “Creating a Look”, which can sell your work much more easily than that little bit that you might get out of an other renderer. My point is, as well as in the knowledge of Color-grading, that you are able to render for a look. ...and here we go again, my suggestion to use and know a real camera in depth, to know it in and out. Photography is today more than ever like rendering, you get a raw information. Without post processing you will not get very far. This knowledge will carry you further than most software additions.
Multi-pass and color correction, that is an powerful combination, check out what is possible right now already if you apply this step (post) as well into your pipeline.
Think about the options. Even FXPHD offers as visual effects “house” color grading classes, it is a “must know” for digital artist. I took several course so far in the past fie years, and I was not bad before that in Color Grading. Well, check out any options, compare how much you can get out of it and if if that “more” will pay for the time- investment. Yes, I do not see that most software is really the factor here, it is the learning-investment and “usage” over the time that makes a software to something affordable or turns it into a luxury event.
Great advice, Sassi. I’m actually taking my first fxphd courses right now, and enjoying them greatly. I come from a shooting/editing background, with a fair amount of clor correction but not compositing 3d objects into “real scenes.”. I’m very happy to hear that in some cases compositing can make up for some features a renderer may lack. BTW, what was your fave fxphd color grading class?
My advice currently would be the “RED302 RED EPIC Grading Workflow”, based on your background and that I think Mike does always a great job.
My own course that I have taken, were centered around Apple’s Color. Which is obviously EOL (End of Life). Well, it is not difficult to move that knowledge over. Today I would focus on Resolve, even I if like NUKE a lot as it has quite some options for this work, but it is not a color grading suite by definition..
In short, in C4D we start splitting information very early, in the material channels for example, to move that separation over via Multi-pass. Then: Via OpenEXR to NUKE, which gives a flexibility in 32bit/c that wasn’t possible a while ago. Splitting things apart creates great control, not only based on e.g. the Object Buffer.
What a render will not give you, can’t be replaced in Compositing. My advice was more to get really savvy with the native render (if not already) and use the time that a 3rd party render would take to use it for establishing a good knowledge in Color grading and yes—compositing. I see there a greater chance to improve the results (with the same investment—Time as well as money).
(I take a break currently from FXPHD, to save for my next camera, which I hopefully will get this year. I certainly miss to torrent of information from them after I have taken over 80 courses so far.)
Compositing is a fascinating field and worth to dive in as a digital artist. I love the options. :o)
I have prepared an “Integration series: BTW. It has 20 theory parts and 34 practical parts. I go along ten themes each time to give a good start. I hope you will like it.
Awesome. I look forward to checking out your integration series! Thanks for the heads-up. And yes, owning a lot of FCP seats this whole EOL thing was quite a shock. Been looking at Resolve as the heir-apparent to Color. Still very upset with the whole Apple move, but oh we’ll.
Yes the EOL stuff. I think in the past twenty years I have had that nearly 50-100 (?) times. Not nice, but obviously part of the game. However, I understand your mood very good about it.
Nevertheless: enjoy the ride.
Take care.
