Thanks for the tip I'll check it out, I'm looking at maybe using Eevee (if it's faster than Redshift) for more stylized projects in the future and anything to improve the renders is greatly appreciated!

Absolutely agree

lol

With our without pulp

I did, I used Optix

@KubCheck it doesn't denoise better at all

Thank! Yeah I was most interested in some real world comparisons to see how well I could integrate any of these renderers into future projects, good to learn some of the strengths of each.

Possibly, my guess is something to do with nested dielectrics but I didn't have time to play around with it.

Yeah I know but as you say it's quite convoluted! Light linking is a desperately needed feature in my opinion, otherwise I'd say Cycles feature wise is very complete.

And Eevee & SSGI for cartoon style, with some work is blazing fast : D

Yeah I was surprised by how decent Eevee with SSGI was!

Yes this is our animation but no at the moment we don't offer any animation tutorials

Cheers!

Gracias, me da gusto que te gustara. Perdona mi español malo!

@@SmallRobotStudio No es malo, se entiende bien. Your spanish is good.

Mi esposa es Mexicana, ella ayudó ;)

Possibly but I have no way to know without buying it, and I'm not really in a position to buy another rendering engine at the moment! However if someone wants to buy it for me I'd be happy to try ;)

That will be difficult as I own none of those renderers! :P

@@SmallRobotStudio bro I think octane is free for blender not really sure but I've heard somewhere that it's free for blender

@@Smartroid oh for real? I'll check it out next year! (In an hour and a half ;)

@@SmallRobotStudio 😂😂 sure man happy New year for u 😂

For the orange Juice it's as it is in the video I posted a couple of days ago for Renderman, Bum Monsters I haven't translated however. I'd be able to get the shots looking fairly identical as it's built in Maya and Renderman supports light linking, so it'd mainly be value and saturation that would differ. Quality-wise visually I'd struggle to see the difference to be honest, I'm used to using both Renderman and Redshift and I can get them to look almost the same in most cases.

@@SmallRobotStudio interesting. So using different render engines just a matter of how easy it is to use and what's faster ?

Put simply, yes, but integration into the DCC and features are also important as the more compatibility it has with internal plugins or features, the less work arounds you require. Redshift is really nice in Houdini for example due to the way it can handle particles.

I only have so much time, comparing 4 engines and translating the scenes was quite time consuming.

I haven't got a larger poly scene to compare (that I can be bothered translating to Blender at least!) but that's worth noting, maybe one day I'll port over a large scene and do another test.

This has improved greatly on the 2.92 builds with the new exporting geometry calculation on rendering.

@@AcademiaCriativa Can you tell me more about this? Is it going to be a default feature on Cycles?

@@lightofheaven2930 It's on by default. On my testings on heavy scenes, such as lots of hair, several particles, lots of high res meshes, volumetrics, the scene calculation is up to 40% faster. In fact, using the latest 2.92 build helped me to render a job in time! :)

I don't own e-cycles so wasn't really an option unfortunately.

@@SmallRobotStudio Gotcha. I've got it. Maybe we can figure something out. Curious how it compares to Redshift in Blender. I compared to C4D Redshift and render times were very comparable.

@@bowserlm I'm translating another scene from Maya to Blender for a more in depth look, have been surprised by the results. Will probably do a video on that in the near future

@@SmallRobotStudio be interested to see.

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't have access to those two Renderers though.

You missed the part where I said that I would use the lowest sample rate for each renderer where I could get a clean, denoised artifact free render. Cycles didn't deliver this below the sample rates used. While Redshift was set to 16 samples, some lights were set higher (64 - 128 depending on their contribution) as this is an optimisation option for Redshift. I also specify this.

Imagine commenting before understanding what he was actually saying

Why does redshift colors look more vibrant & lighter than the other render in this video?

No, Optix. Intel would have been much slower for me

@@SmallRobotStudio oh wow that's a fast response and thank you was just asking because Intel can have a better result at times and can be used as a post process

I haven't done a lot of comparison but as my GPU is significantly newer than my CPU generally I would say it's faster on Optix. I didn't want to get into compositing as I would have to then for each renderer and this video already took ages to make!

I use gtx 1080 + R9 5950X (32t) with cycle render, 128 samples and finally Intel denoise. Fast and good result

Yeah I feel you, convert 500USD to NZD and feel my pain even more! It's worth it for our studio though as working off a quick IPR helps us look dev much quicker, as well as the Redshift licence working across all our DCCs. Combined with the RTX3070 we can handle most small to medium sized projects on the one workstation. Re: Optix, for the sake of this test I stuck with Optix as both Cycles and Redshift use it so it seems like a better comparison. It's definitely faster than the Intel solution as both the render and the denoise are running on the GPU so there's not a lot of incentive to use the CPU, especially on this system where the processor is getting on. (i7 6700k @ 4.4ghz)

500$ would be fair, if you could use it forever. But after one year you have to pay 250$ for maintenance annually to keep your license working....

@@Greyfoxsomething Your licence is perpetual to the last version you were licenced to use when your licence ran out. For example if your licence expired today you would still be able to use version 3.0.35 forever. In fact I did just that for about a year on an older version a couple of years ago.

@@SmallRobotStudio I missunderstood this sentence than " If you allow your maintenance to expire past the grace period, you must purchase a new license of Redshift at full retail price." So, you have to buy a license again if you want to use the latest version? Sounds a bit better :)

@@Greyfoxsomething Yeah that's right, the grace period is just for your maintenance to remain at $250 per anum. It's not too bad a deal but I get that it's not for everyone, it is a lot of money!

In certain situations and with compositing I see it as a strong alternative to ray-tracing!

@@SmallRobotStudio It's perfect for product shots, but falls apart a bit when doing interiors - lack of proper gi etc

@@micemincer maybe with baking light probes and reflection probes? however, it stops being ‘dynamic’ light, any lighting changes would require a rebake. (Blender newbie here, don’t have all the concepts nailed quite yet)

@@alejmc Baking lightprobes can be slower than cycles - and gives poor results in the end. The best solution for eevee is SSGI, if this isn't enough then cycles with openimage denoiser - Can do more than satisfying interior renders in full HD in like 3 mins - zero noise, minimal detail loss (on 2080 super).

@@micemincer Not in work projects. Octane by 10 heads over Cycles for architecture

If Cycles is your chosen renderer then that's great!

If I was in the market for another renderer I probably would but at the moment I can't justify the extra expense!

I was finding at 128 samples it was still noisy, 256 seemed to be the sweet spot.

I'm going to pin this because it's the third time someone has said it in spite of me saying why I did this in the video. The objective for each renderer was to get a clean result at the lowest sample rate. Sample rates are not one to one between renderers, neither are workflows, neither are features. The point of this video was not to say which one was "best" but show the differences, a "comparison". Cycles at 4/16 looked terrible where as, because Redshift has sample overrides per light as a feature, on that one level you can scene optimize a bit more finely.

haha Redshift is the fastest.