then you should try redshift, it's really a piece of software

Have you tried real time renderer like those in Unity or Unreal? You can bake GI for better lighting too. I never tried them yet, but from their demos, they seem good.

this is rendertime test, not beauty.

Fduchun Yeah, rendertime is so underrated! Think about the difference in IPR performance!

It’s both what do you get for how long

Exactly..

Buddy you're absolutely right!

Actually other renderer can produce the same result with little cost, and you just need to turn some options on.

But V-Ray is still 48min xD explain please!

@@itsthatYEStoogoodguy vray is 48min because it cheats! lol, it uses lightcache and other things to give a fairly good approximation, however renderman and arnold output a better quality because they go full brute force for lack of a better name. Pause the video and observe the differences in the reflections and refractions between vray and renderman, and you'll see that vray is missing detail

This is most likely paid by Maxon to showcase Redshift's speed. It looks too professional to be someone's causal free time work.

@@SeanDlrishBastard These are incredibly simple scene files. Not sure what you mean by too professional. A generic glass shader is usually a pretty standard preset for most renderers, and everything looks to be driven by HDRI lighting.

@@AllenKarachun I meant it in a way that it is very carefully thought through. For example, in every video this guy has, if you skip 5 or 10 seconds you will get exactly the same frame in other engine. Also it is edited flawlessly so you can compare the engines in every way possible and all needed information is provided. And look at the other videos on the channel, of course, it's not the next world wonder but you can't do all the work by using presets exactly. One more suspicious thing is that this channel is made just for these few comaprison videos and that's all it contains. No replies in the comments, no likes. All of it looks like a paid job to me ;) Sure, I could be wrong but I challenge you to find me another comparison on KZfaq with similar quality :)

To your point about how precise it is, you render out X amount of frames every time and when you compile however many, it will naturally line up. I don't think you can use the argument that it's rare to find a high quality comparison channel because rendering and 3D in itself, is a very niche population, therefore not many people creating it. If it is a paid channel, then it would be more bias towards whatever company that paid for it. The times and quality would always make Redshift win but that's not the case. Other renderers appear better at certain things and some of the times are very close or the same to redshift. I believe it's just a portfolio piece for someone in the industry, which is why the channel is so clean of anything. It shows they can use all these renderers well and they have enough skill to create a high quality polished video

@@SeanDlrishBastard sounds a bit weird and paranoid. maybe this person works at a render farm or does pipeline at a vfx shop and posts it public for reference. this would be a stupid advert because there’s no clear ‘brand x’ and no ‘leading brand.’ To be the arnold look better and octane the fastest or just as fast as rs. goofy

Ted Sowards Try out redshift, you'll never switch back

if you value quality over time, stick with renderman

@@krowwithakay If you dont do complex scenes, yes. But when it starts to get complex a cpu based render is the way to go, bc in complex scenes Redshift breaks apart.

without adaptive sampling arnold can get out of control

no, the similar is arnold, houdini, and octane

ahahah, cycles is a mess with causistics. lots and lots fireflies. But i find out that with blender 2.8 clamp indirect 10 and filter glossy 1 (aka the default settings) the render is much cleaner at cost of acuracy of course

your eyes are BAD

Yeah, but only for small scenes

@@MrSharp-yg1wb True

what do you mean by accuracy?

@@alexshoneya The caustic shadows on the second set of renders

@@vikisk.3d this is fake caustics, nothing special

those caustics are fake news

Vray is much more accurate than these 2

I wonder how corona would stack up against all the other renderers. I've seen some really good looking archviz shots with that renderer (or maybe the artists were really good :P)

@@25knightcrawler doesn,t matter, corona just another vray.

The author then didn’t set up other renderers the proper way. Plus glass will get darker with lots of glass objects.

just push octane and redshift a bit more, you will see what's the real power.

its just a dumb thing to say. You can achieve any result in any render engine. This is a render time test, not beauty.

redshift also can get better glass result.

Speed is great, but at the expense of quality. Muddy Redshift renders everywhere online, and they should rename SSS to "Fake mishap" I'm not a fan.

@@wernerziemerink It makes pretty good results usually I think, and most muddiness can be fixed in compositing anyways. Much better than waiting a month for a render. I agree on the SSS though. Even Blender EEVEE does a better job lmao

that doesn't directly depends from Render Man but how he made the shader

@Adan Absolutely, 100%

NO RS is the best. way better

@@iguanacgi7448 are you high

the hardware is specified in the beginning of the video

If he did use pathtracing it’s obvious he needed to increase the specular and diffuse depths.

But i dont want use it because there's no cycles for houdini. I want use Solaris to assemble and render scene.

Caesar Yeah definitely not. I feel bad for Arnold users, redshift is my favorite by faaar

I'll give you that redshift has great quality per time ratio, but it just won't reach arnold and renderman levels of quality, and it comes down to what you value more, I stick with renderman

@@marcor.cacereslopez3050 Levels of quality where, exactly? It has everything those other two have and (most importantly) it's evolving much faster and the support is fantastic. Renderman support (forum, resources, tutorials) is almost inexistent compared to Redshift. But in the end, use what you know best and feel comfortable in its UI. In the end, it really doesn't matter, a user can make an Oscar short in Redshift and another shitty tests in Renderman (or vice versa) - it's the skill and imagination that counts, much more than 2 pixel sample difference on SSS interpolations.

@@Caesaurus Actually youre wrong. As you know Redshift and Octane are GPU rendererers. You probably dont know, that they break apart when you do complex things. Plus they are pretty bad with volumes, cause the cant handle the volume lighting.

@@Borsilive Don't be so sure when telling people they're clueless, it makes you seem supperficial. 😷 I use Redshift in production very well. It can also handle volume light or volume mesher without any problems. I'll switch to a CPU render when I'll need some complex, precise caustics or detailed sss for example, but try it first, you can *_rarely_* spot the differences... But hey, in the end use what you feel comfortable, I'm not a Redshift evangelist lol, in the end it's the creativity that counts, puny render engines come second. If you have a monster CPU with 128 threads then it's not much of a difference anyway. But still, that specific difference I was referring to at the beginning is huge.

Look at the shadows

Renderman's shadow as well

this is fake caustic trick, not expensive at all

I guess he turned off caustic in Redshift. So the shadow looks fake.

he did not tune octane everything is good with the octane with glass, the author’s hands are crooked

Cycles, EEvEE, Mitsuba, luxCore, YafaRay... like half of them

no

@@BlenderBeanie I dont think you have to compare them with these paid renders. Cycles, Eevee and luxcore are free (I dont know the other too) and these are the ones (except for Redshift and Octane) Used for Production (not only big ones)

@Spenser Dickerson Thanks for your analysis

1. Renderman and 2. Ardold in terms of render quality and photorealism. Redshift has awful and unrealistic transparent and specular handling. Octane has smeary and unsharp rendering quality. So: winner in terms of photorealism is RenderMan. Winner in terms of speed is Redshift.

no!redshift NO.1

@@pili3880 any arguments why is that?

@@jussivalter if you turn off the cut off dim reflection option and add some refration shadow.redshift glass will be the same as Arnold or octane.and redshift speed is the most faster than any other render.

But Redshift has really unrealistic results. Rendrman and arnold has good photorealism. GPU rendering comes with many downsides.

@@jussivalter Are you kidding? There is very colse results, also RS can be ran in unbiased mode. Realism is about shaders and arists skill and almost nothig about render.

@@alexshoneya Shaders etc. are a part of it. But imagine ILM would work with Redshift. First of all the volumes would look terrible, second complex scenes would absolutely break and it wouldn't look real at all. The render engine does play a big part in realism. Shadow Quality, light bounces ect. Deal with it. GPU renders are not useable in Production at this point in time.... In 5 years maybe, but not yet!

@@Borsilive I dont care about ILM to be honest, they can make any shaders they want for any render. If artist cant make good looking volumes in Redshift or make complex scenes - he is a BAD artist, because technology under the hood of this renders is all the same.

True shit. 114 min doesn't sound realistic to me at all. I think the video's only purpose is to advertise Redshift. Otherwise he would do complex scenes for comparison like huge crowds/landscapes with much geometry or a high Quality smoke or fluid sim.

Yeah, but Octane / Redshift absolutely suck at Quality. Renderman is 1st, Arnold 2nd in terms of Quality and realism.

​@@Borsilive Yes, But the details is hard to tell unless someone else put them together like author. So, I prefer 6 minites one.😂

At what is V-Ray so obviously a winner?

Filip Stamate physical correctness and rendering time. Also should mention supported features, customizability, many light scenes are handled with no problem, very smart sampling of bruteforce even for indoor scenes without using portals, auto exposure and white balance, perfect caustics. Enough for you?

Filip Stamate It’s the perfect balance between accuracy and time.

@@bazonga9085 Is it? From 6 minutes in Redshift to 48 minutes in VRay. You're saying the VRay render looks 8 times better? I don't really see the balance.

@@Eternal_23 You got all those from this video, did you? As for correctness AND time, seems like Octane would be a much better choice, since it appears to be more accurate than Redshift and still very fast. Or, if time is the most important, I'd say Redshift is the obvious winner. Sorry if I offended your obvious winner favorite engine.

is it bad, or just incorrect render settings? Settings like refraction limit or refraction exit color.

I totally disagree, its all about overall production quality vs speed. comparing noises for non-visible or too subtle effects is time waste with no real applicable variables and for that denoisers can do a pretty decent job. All the renders has similar/necessary and are good for production level. Arnold is awesome, but it proves too expensive for any other renderers that are showing similar quality for way less time.

@@paulosampaio1066 I agree with you.. Arnold definitely has the best production quality and denoisers can do the trick. However, when comparing two different things then the conditions have to be the same otherwise it's just some bro science.