CGPersia Forums
Release Blog CGPeers Register FAQ IRC Chat
Go Back   CGPersia Forums > Off Topic > CG General Discussion
Reload this Page Need Offer about Rendering ( C4D )
CG General Discussion General discussion related to computer graphics and the CG industry

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-25-2012   #1
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Default Need Offer about Rendering ( C4D )

Hey everybody, Merry Christmas!

I want to ask which renderer for Cinema 4D is best for my setup ? I want to render animations. Looking something similliar to Vray, but vray is too slow and too difficult for me ( its like to master 3ds max from zero ), maybe something like maxwell render ( maxwell render animation will be complicated becaus the blury images, need to reposition camera in maxwell studio, so i will get shaky animation in this way )

So i need something like maxwell to render animations.

Setup:

i5-2320 3.0ghz
8gb ram 1333mhz
Radeon HD 7850 2GB GDDR5 256bit

Most expierenced in:

Cinema 4D
After Effects


( low in other 3d softwares )

Last edited by Exaco; 12-25-2012 at 03:24 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #2
dink111
dink111's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 225
Thanks (Given): 231
Thanks (Received): 176
The physical renderer in C4D is really good and faster than Vray or Maxwell, try pushing the limits of the Physical Renderer first and I would follow the advise in you sig.


Good Luck
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-25-2012   #3
dubadum
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,147
Thanks (Given): 413
Thanks (Received): 856
just learn technique without using GI... then rendering animation is really FAST
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - Densha, Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-25-2012   #4
Regz
Regz's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,372
Thanks (Given): 383
Thanks (Received): 2386
C4D standard render is fine.
__________________

I don't know what I like more, CG, music or a female ass... Please help me...
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #5
Rumburak
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 117
Thanks (Given): 68
Thanks (Received): 23
Use Maxwell and you are busy for the next 10 years
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #6
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Thanks for tips and help, i think im going to use the first qoute in my sig.. seen videocopilot's tutorial how to make a photorealistic room in c4d with physical + im 100x better on c4d texturing than in renderer softwares.

Btw this rendering time is normal ? ( there is a .tga texture used on model and render settings ) SCREENSHOT
Physical sky used only. I believe with some bump map and normal it would render about 20min+-

Last edited by Exaco; 12-25-2012 at 04:34 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #7
CuriousOBS
CuriousOBS's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 939
Thanks (Given): 136
Thanks (Received): 255
Render in really small parts, always to image sequense- never to movie with
only the level of Antialising you need so you can avoid live preview.
It's easier to merge your small videos in post. I suspect it will always be slow ,
especially if you use hair or post effects.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #8
bentreality
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 284
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 82
i am sure u can learn all in some hours so that your render will be finished super quickly
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #9
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Link(s):
 
I can't even render a simple models scene with .tga or .png textures in good time.. So i'm afraid to talk about hair.. Hair would take thousand of years to render for me I can upload example project, but thats will be ~100mb+ due to the textures..
I heard something about baking textures that's improving render speed, maybe thats my render problem ? Now im using scene with ~159 .tga textures and almost every of them is with bump channel ( copied color channel to bump and set at ~60% )
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012   #10
dink111
dink111's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 225
Thanks (Given): 231
Thanks (Received): 176
Stop using GI, indirect Illumination what ever they want to call it learn to light you scene using area lights spotlights and point lights learn to fake it brute force button pushing wont work render time wise, learn to approximate the look try using AO(Ambient Occlusion) and other tricks, dont lean on pressing the GI button as your render times will suffer.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - Densha, Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-25-2012   #11
CuriousOBS
CuriousOBS's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 939
Thanks (Given): 136
Thanks (Received): 255
Maybe lower ray-reflection-shadow depth in render settings-options
would help. I use C4D only for simple animations so i can't be of more help.
BTW i'm curious about what cineman render means.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-25-2012   #12
Hawkeye
Hawkeye's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,019
Thanks (Given): 1198
Thanks (Received): 3379
Check out this invaluable tut:
http://greyscalegorilla.com/blog/201...-in-cinema-4d/
__________________
if a pirate takes one drop from an infinite ocean..what harm can come to that ocean?

Marriage is an intolerable obstacle to individualistic evolution.

The authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - CuriousOBS thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #13
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Thanks again, but i disagree the fact if i lower settings -> i will get better render speed ( if i lower the settings my quality goes down, so thats the reason why its faster, and i don't want to lower my quality, because i need that as much as possible realistic ).
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #14
Hawkeye
Hawkeye's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,019
Thanks (Given): 1198
Thanks (Received): 3379
Well...you in for a big dissapointment then..cos you aint gettin better than that video is showing.
So bite down hard on that bullet, and listen to the teachers, instead of stubbornly refusing to take thier advice.
__________________
if a pirate takes one drop from an infinite ocean..what harm can come to that ocean?

Marriage is an intolerable obstacle to individualistic evolution.

The authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #15
angelia
angelia's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 114
Thanks (Given): 1
Thanks (Received): 15
the best renderers for C4D,as I think,are Vray and Maxwell,choose the one you like.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #16
CuriousOBS
CuriousOBS's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 939
Thanks (Given): 136
Thanks (Received): 255
[QUOTE=Exaco;623138( if i lower the settings my quality goes down, so thats the reason why its faster, and i don't want to lower my quality, because i need that as much as possible realistic ).[/QUOTE]
I thought this thread was made to gain time not quality. This last post is really confusing.
The video Hawkeye suggested was really an eyeopener for me.
(until of course i discover the mystical magic renderer).
__________________

is Online  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #17
breeze1
breeze1's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 893
Thanks (Given): 185
Thanks (Received): 237
Link(s):
 
lol what? first off, vray is not slow if you do it right, second, its not that hard to master, just watch some tutorials on the basics, third vray is too slow but maxwell is alright?? Maxwell is the slowest there is, it takes about 6+ hours on average for 1 frame. Please don't say stuff like that if you don't know what you're talking about. Learn to use vray right, and you get nice speeds and great quality. Or don't learn anything and use maxwell, then be ready for weeks of nonstop rendering.

Also;
Link(s):
 
It does not work that way. Alot of times some settings are just unnecessarily high, and there is no difference in quality when lowering it, but a huge quality in renderspeed.

I'm getting pretty sick of people looking for quick fixes, its a fucking craft goddamnit, please start taking this stuff seriously.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #18
bentreality
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 284
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 82
we live in a world where amateurs start to think they'll be able to do professional work in a blink because they can download some software.
nothing against you exaco, its always ok to start a discussion, but sadly things are not so easy sometimes
to say something constructive: forget gi, or if u need it use vray, it is by far the fastest option you have.
still, to master vray will take you a lot of time. we are talking of months and years here

Last edited by bentreality; 12-26-2012 at 09:50 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #19
pooranimator
pooranimator's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 349
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 65
My first question is why use tga? With photoshop's "save for web" feature you can optimize the crap out of textures and save it as jpeg. Tga doesn't automatically mean high quality renders. As for testing you could just render in small sizes and later do a big one. Many people don't know this that png is really bad for pictures with shades and gradients, it's only good for solid colors compared to other formats.
__________________
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #20
magallanes
magallanes's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 523
Thanks (Given): 135
Thanks (Received): 184
Link(s):
 
jpeg is a lossless format that generates artifacts.
__________________
To Err Is Human, to Arr Is Pirate

i found a version of Autocad that never crashes, it is called pen and paper.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #21
gunk0001
gunk0001's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Thanks (Given): 95
Thanks (Received): 38
ive read an page in 3d creative saying half of the time was spent in rendering...just deal with it do some small size renders like 480p then when it looks good enough do a full res.. also vray brute force is good in animation if your looking for gi solution..
primary bounce is brute force
second bounce should be light cache
dont go crazy with dmc sampler its ok to have noise cuz animations are ment to be blurred on post.. good luck

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

cinema physical render is a brute force GI, problem being is that in cinema's physical render you dont have the abillity to mix GI solutions unlike in vray.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #22
Moderator
ツ's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
Thanks (Given): 262
Thanks (Received): 596
Link(s):
 
sure? (not referring to JPEG 2000/JPEG-LS)
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #23
gunk0001
gunk0001's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Thanks (Given): 95
Thanks (Received): 38
what magallanes said is true if you go up more than 255 color range youll see rainbows..seldom you need to anyway
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #24
Moderator
ツ's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
Thanks (Given): 262
Thanks (Received): 596
Link(s):
 
and you know what "lossless" means? o.O

Link(s):
 
a lossless format does not lose any information regarding pixel-data
a lossy format does

jpeg creates artifacts due to compression... so... is jpeg lossy or lossless ?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #25
gunk0001
gunk0001's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Thanks (Given): 95
Thanks (Received): 38
yup but even though there's no doubt that it creates artifacts on greater values so i rather work on float if i need to

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

try changing a jpegs gamma see if it ratains your lovely exposures

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

most likely it if you darken it, it will looked like theres a semi transparent solid black on top of everything
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #26
Moderator
ツ's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
Thanks (Given): 262
Thanks (Received): 596
Link(s):
 
before you embarrass yourself furthermore, write in in your words what "lossy" and "lossless" means.
And I don't think that anyone here said that jpeg should be used for quality-texture workflows at all.

but go ahead, it's also entertaining
Link(s):
 
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #27
gunk0001
gunk0001's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Thanks (Given): 95
Thanks (Received): 38
hahaha.. dont go crazy dude..ok lossless.. happy now?

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

i won,t define it for you since your handy dandy dictionary tell everything you need to know
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #28
radoman
radoman's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,894
Thanks (Given): 1869
Thanks (Received): 1734
@ Exaco, your PC is to weak for Maxvel, and all GI solutions will give you a long render time, problems with flickering, artifacts and other shits.
See the examples on this site and you will see that the result can be achieved without GI.
Link(s):
 
PS. Exercise and practice is necessary
Link(s):
 
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #29
pooranimator
pooranimator's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 349
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 65
Link(s):
 
Lossless doesn't mean it's bad, this is exactly what I mean, just because TGA is not a lossy/lossless format doesn't automatically mean it is good (it is good but not for every job). JPEG can reduce the file size of TGA OR TIFF very efficiently. JPEG doesn't mean it has to be an image with lots of blocks on it. You can compress something into a JPEG with Photoshop so efficiently that you won't even know the difference. That is where the "Save for Web (ALT+Shift+Ctrl+S)" feature comes in handy. You can compare the same image with different quality settings and decide which quality looks the most optimized. As someone mentioned earlier, optimizing your scene is the key. Obviously you can't use JPEGs for something that needs a texture with alpha channel on it.

p.s Yadsale is right, lossy and lossless is not the same, same goes for audio formats.
__________________

Last edited by pooranimator; 12-26-2012 at 04:41 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012   #30
Aof
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 77
Thanks (Given): 3
Thanks (Received): 23
Link(s):
 
What?!?
You must be kidding. If you find Vray slow, then you have unrealistic expectations.
There is nothing difficult in Vray at all. I agree that for some programs like sketchup for example, the interface is surely lacking and needs to be modernized, specially the material editor, but once you understand what every parameter means, it's a breeze.
As others pointed out, you need to study the subject a little more first. If you are not willing to learn the program, of course it is going to be difficult. How do you expect to have results if you don't put a little effort? This goes for all rendering programs out there.
There are a lot of good tutorials, and the Vray manual is pretty decent in explaining all the parameters.

First learn the difference between an unbiased and a biased rendering engine.
Unbiased engines have less parameters and are "physically correct", but this comes at the cost of slower rendering times.
If you are going to do animation, forget unbiased engines with the setup you have. You have no choice, you need to learn a biased engine like Vray if you want to do animation and need decent rendering times.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-26-2012   #31
trayser
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 296
Thanks (Given): 13
Thanks (Received): 62
You can either suck it up and live with very long render times or you can do your best to fake it, do a couple of stills in the animation with GI etc. and see how the light looks. Then do the same renders without GI and see what is missing, then add some coloured lights and try to get a similiar look. In most cases it won't have to be perfect as long as it looks right.

For reflections, see if you can use a reflection image rather than real reflections on some objects, you can even render out the envirorment they are placed in and use as reflection. Do a blurred one for blurry reflections too, can make a few versions for different blurriness.

For contact shadows just render out a AO pass, they are fairly quick and it should look right.

With all set up right you should be able to render vary fast renders that still will look good, then you add the rest in post. You should also get a motion vector pass and a zDepth pass out so you can add depth of field and motionblur in post.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #32
weiq
weiq's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,787
Thanks (Given): 458
Thanks (Received): 1687
with animation/motion graphics/video
it's all about Optimize, optimize, and optimize

do u think all high-end/high profile studios/companies just choose a standard "freaking-awesome-ultra" setting and render away?

nope

they know how to optimize well (CG is all about cheating and faking to sell to the masses)
that's why they are called PROFESSIONALS

u can't learn to cheat without learning the craft for a long period of time

u gotta stick to the rules, before u know how break the rules
__________________
click > here < to learn how to be a premium member for free
want CGPeers Invite ? click here
Mac users, do you know there's Mac sections just for you guys to beg and ask for stuffs?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #33
dink111
dink111's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 225
Thanks (Given): 231
Thanks (Received): 176
Exaco

You need to understand the simple truth regard CGI there is good and there is good enough.
Your computer is under powered .
Your lack an understanding of how this all goes together, its always compromise, If realism is your goal then study what makes something look and feel real.

That screen you posted is not realism it looks like a game asset and is not worth the 4+ mins it took to render.
You could get the same and far better results by creating proper materials.

Understand how textures are used if your model is going to occupy most of the screen in a close up then then texture needs to be large 2k-4k size if not if can be smaller and of any quality.

These are the things you need to understand not which render is best.

understand the science and art of rendering then you can make an informed decision about which other renderer to use.

Given the system you have use the physical renderer in C4D and learn more then move on in needed.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #34
cgireal
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 25
Thanks (Given): 1
Thanks (Received): 5
Exaco, this might be good for you, //forum.cgpersia.com/f55/solidrocks-cinema-4d-62826/

Apparently it makes the vray plug easier to use.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #35
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Thanks guys for the useful information, you opened my eyes for that much more.

Yes, i'm exporting the maps and models from a game ( Counter Strike: Source ), there is already software made with that you can render fast animations with lighting and shit same like in-game for half life 2 engine games ( there is one of my old works with that software - the guy walking in begining ), but i want to achieve something much more realistic maybe like Battlefield 3 Graphics or even better, because the simple animations / 3D became mainstream in CS:S moviemaking.

Last edited by Exaco; 12-27-2012 at 01:06 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012   #36
AoS
AoS's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,441
Thanks (Given): 250
Thanks (Received): 542
Are you sure you don't want to render your stuff with a game engine? A 3D renderer is a whole different beast from games engines, no matter which oneyou end up using. Go with the C4D's native renderer and be done with it - your biggest concern is most likely character animation.
__________________
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for the day.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #37
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
The game animations for now is my main point, but also i want to do non-game stuff, like some beatiful things, intros, cars etc..
For the games i realized that i need to recreate the maps ( not enough polygons ), also retexture everything to make it look better than in-game. Now going to learn how to use vray starting with this tutorial. ( in ~2-5 days i should be mastered it for my requirements )

Last edited by Exaco; 12-27-2012 at 01:26 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012   #38
AoS
AoS's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,441
Thanks (Given): 250
Thanks (Received): 542
Link(s):
 
Think positive, that's the spirit!
__________________
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for the day.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Exaco thanked for this post
Old 12-27-2012   #39
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Thanks, AoS, first maybe i was "ill-disposed" against vray, now tried without getting angry on that, and i achieved really good result using vray and in very fast time + i can use interlaced render when changing settings to see how it looks, even that is fast and the material editor is not hard to use! My first attempt
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012   #40
AoS
AoS's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,441
Thanks (Given): 250
Thanks (Received): 542
Yea well, as long as you have 11 polygons in your scene, you can expect quite speedy renders.
__________________
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for the day.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012   #41
radoman
radoman's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,894
Thanks (Given): 1869
Thanks (Received): 1734
something I do not understand you're a single character render 4 min. with i5.... i render this guys just to see models with mu dual core in almost same time
Link(s):
 
is Online  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012   #42
Exaco
Exaco's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 56
Thanks (Given): 40
Thanks (Received): 4
Link(s):
 
Pretty nice, now im using vray, and some sick quality renders take only ~1min and they are 1920x1080.
EXAMPLE - Rendered in 4min 10sec, but its a low resolution textures ( ~600x400 etc ) so it looks not that good.
Effects used on textures: Bump ( on every texture ), Specular on the model clothes. All tex are set to "none" where is the "alias 1, alias 2, MIP etc".. There is 10 tex total.
Gonna learn how to use displacement in vray and i love VRAY! Thank you all!

Oh btw.. The hands in your models, i have same bug after exporting CS:GO models from the game. Any ideas how to fix it ? In my case the bones go straight ( normally ) and the hands are same like in your pic.

Link(s):
 
No, i think a bit different, first like everyone i look at the reviews and abilities what the software can do, then i see the main ability what i need, so i focus on it and learn it also like always the rest is also needed, but first i try to master my first point, then learn the other abilities of the software. Also even the software is not that hard and you think you mastered it, you will always find something new again and again. So in that way even i do sick work, i can't call myself professional, because i know i can learn much more than i know.

Sry for bad eng.

Last edited by Exaco; 12-30-2012 at 02:27 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote