Modo Rendering Challenge.

[crazy wabbit]

I started to judge carrara with modo too, but then again carrara is an all around 3d package with many features that modo does not have. There are good examples of what the rendering does by looking at the examples above on the banner on this page. For the price and features Carrara attracted me to purchase it, I still think it is up to the user to make full use of the features and correctly apply the settings.

[edgework]

Originally Posted by Nichod

Ok. My first attempt.

My initial pass had the same result. I haven't worked out the numbers yet, but it seems that it's going to involve some combination of reduced HDR intensity, lowering the Sky Light setting and using indirect lighting. Otherwise, to reduce the harsh glare of the HDR lighting, the shadow detail gets lost. I've been rendering without Ambient light, though I might try it just to see if I can bring some detail into the shadows without blasting out the highlights. This is tricky. Off the top of my head, I'd say that Carrara might not have the chops to pull this off, though I'm going to keep working the variations.

[LoneGunman]

Originally Posted by Patrick210

"That is exactly why I did not purchase Carrara Pro, too much money for renderer which only is a good potential..."

Can't say I necessarily agree with that. What less expensive, better renderer do you use?

I use same renderer, I have Carrara 5 regular, not PRO, much less money, i did not want to pay for more advanced animation features and other trinkets, when base renderer is same and still have lot to desire (not in amount of features, more in what and how they deliver).

If I remember it correctly, C5 PRO is around $500 (currently at DAZ) and that is about the same like SoftImage XSI (foundation), which does not have all the features working (dynamic har and fur, for example), but I always had a strange feeling that MentalRay is way ahead and good deal for that amount of money

[Inspireology]

From my experimentation, Carrara does 2-3 bounce radiosity, but you cant change the settings. However, that is all 98% of renders need. It is a fine renderer, I love using it and in general it is VERY fast.

One tip for using blurry reflections is that the default setting of 100% is way to high and takes too long to calculate. Setting it to around 20% is ample and takes less time to calculate. Still, the render took way too long for me to really give this challenge a try.

Honestly comparing Carrara to Modo will probably just end up in feeling jealous, as "the renders always cleaner on the other side!". I am sure there is loads of stuff that Modo does better, but I am completely happy with Carrara for now, it has everything I need and more and is great fun to use.

If I spent all my time chasing the hottest new application I would end up with an empty pocket, a few shakey skills and not much art. I have decided to knuckle down and produce some great work and may be later on consider a new application once my skills are ready. For now Carrara 5 & Wings satisfy me plenty.

Be sure in a few months someone will annouce a Modo killer in the next year or two... You just cant keep up!

[Patrick210]

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about another program. I need network rendering, and just upgrading doesn't cost near as much.

[crazy wabbit]

Originally Posted by Inspireology

If I spent all my time chasing the hottest new application I would end up with an empty pocket, a few shakey skills and not much art. I have decided to knuckle down and produce some great work and may be later on consider a new application once my skills are ready. For now Carrara 5 & Wings satisfy me plenty.

Be sure in a few months someone will annouce a Modo killer in the next year or two... You just cant keep up!

YOU said it brother, Haliloya

[-ash-]

I've been having a go at this and I don't seem to be able to get the reflections right. Look at the original, there are reflections of the HDRI in the spheres that don't seem to show up in the Carrara render. I noticed it is the same on Nichod's post.

Any thoughts?

[LoneGunman]

Originally Posted by Patrick210

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about another program. I need network rendering, and just upgrading doesn't cost near as much.

Well, Patrick, there is another program I was very happy with...

I always honestly believed that if you strip Carrara5 to what Bryce5 has render-wise, Bryce5 is the clear winner in render quality. It is slow, indeed, but final render always looks better (I guess because Bryce does not approximate anything or find shortcuts in order to speed up, ).

I was having problem yesterday, for example, with faceting showing clearly when point-light was used with soft shadows turned on (on highest quality setting). However, when I switched light from bulb (point) to distant (parallel) problem disappeared.

Shadow banding is still a big problem with all of the lights Carrara5 has.

Rendering alpha-transparency with GI turned on also has its problems; they really need to fix lot of stuff...

[steama]

Carrara is great for the price and it is what I will use, however, one seems to get what one pays for in most cases. In this case it is very obvious that the more expensive Modo does a better job rendering HDRI.

[Pete Exxtreme]

I'm a bit surprized about this bad opnion about Carrara's renders... AS far as i know, one can achieve some fairly good rendering incl. indoor ones, like in this one :

(image made by Langeron http://forums.polyloop.net/gallery/b...c=4&userid=621)

Sure you need some tweaking, and it's not Vray engine too, but personnaly i find it excellent...

my 2 cents...

[Thomas]

Brian: do you have the CGtalk thread url? Thanks!

[Patrick210]

Here's one I did that took quite while, don't remember exactly. I wanted to do some more test to optimize the time, but ran out of it. I didn't use Brian's version, but tried on my own. Skipped blurry reflections as I wanted it to finish this week.

[Patrick210]

"I always honestly believed that if you strip Carrara5 to what Bryce5 has render-wise, Bryce5 is the clear winner in render quality. It is slow, indeed, but final render always looks better (I guess because Bryce does not approximate anything or find shortcuts in order to speed up, ).

I was having problem yesterday, for example, with faceting showing clearly when point-light was used with soft shadows turned on (on highest quality setting). However, when I switched light from bulb (point) to distant (parallel) problem disappeared.

Shadow banding is still a big problem with all of the lights Carrara5 has.

Rendering alpha-transparency with GI turned on also has its problems; they really need to fix lot of stuff..."

I can't go along with the theory that Bryce is slower but better. I used Bryce for a few years and couldn't get the results I get with Carrara. Carrara can get better results with the right settings, that do take longer sometimes. The transparency issue with GI was remedied with a new checkbox there, I believe. There are so many more possibilites in Carrara for lighting that Bryce doesn't even compare. I expect Bryce 6 will enhance those capabilities.

[Nichod]

Thomas,

Here is the cgtalk thread: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=389990

[LoneGunman]

Not trying to be annoying here or bug you, but if something gives me a problem, I do not give up that easily... What would it be your suggestion for shadow banding problem with Carrara lights ?

I have feeling that Carrara has no randomness when shadows are raytraced so soft shadows are having banding no matter what setting is. It can be hidden by applying reflection and bump to the surfaces, but what if I need surface without these properties ?

Bryce, on the other hand, is using different system than shadow mapping for creating soft shadows (and DOF) which incorporates jittering (adjustable with RaysPerPixel field in render options). It replaces shadow banding with noise which is more aesthetically pleasing (more RPP-s, less apperent noise it is, but, render times go trough the roof, ). This sistem IS better IMO, but it takes much longer to render, and it is not suitable for animations if RPP seting is relatively low (cuz pattern of noise changes from frame to frame).

Below is example of what I'm talking about, 1 distant light used, highest possible setting

[Thomas]

Thanks!

[crazy wabbit]

Originally Posted by Patrick210

Here's one I did that took quite while, don't remember exactly. I wanted to do some more test to optimize the time, but ran out of it. I didn't use Brian's version, but tried on my own. Skipped blurry reflections as I wanted it to finish this week.

Nice work patrick you sold me on carrara

[dbigers]

Originally Posted by Pete Exxtreme

I'm a bit surprized about this bad opnion about Carrara's renders... AS far as i know, one can achieve some fairly good rendering incl. indoor ones, like in this one :

Sure you need some tweaking, and it's not Vray engine too, but personnaly i find it excellent...

my 2 cents...

Lovely render Pete!! I always liked that one. I too have been impressed with the output from Carrara and the rendering speed for most scenes is great. I did some recent testing myself with Carrara and interiors. Nowhere near as good as your results, but that was me, not Carrara. ;)

With the AO included in C5 it is possible to do great interior renderings in a fraction of the time of full GI. You lose the bounced light, but many scenes look good regardless. Depending on the materials for say a floor, you have to be careful to be extremely accurate when using full GI so that you dont get blowouts from unrealistic surfaces.

Concerning Carrara's method of GI. Photon Mapping is quite a bit different than pure radiosity. I am not sure exactly what method Carrara's uses for P-Mapping and how to equate it to bounces. If you use enough photons it appears to be doing more than one bounce. But I could be wrong on that. I just picked up another rendering box, I have some spare time and I think I will do some more "scientific" testing.

I have read up on this subject quite a bit, but I am unable to determine exactly which implementation of Photon Mapping Carrara uses. But I do know that it is incredibly faster than radiosity is in Lightwave, which is expected. A full Monte Carlo radiosity solution compared to the more efficient method of Photon Mapping. Some of the testing I did recently with Carrara created scenes that would be overnight renders in Lightwave. In Carrara it was a couple of hours. By comparison, the AO version took 20-30 minutes. It is also much easier to get an approximation of what the final image will look like before commiting to a larger rendering with lighting quality turned up. Being able to preview the image at lower quality helps.

As an aside I also have FPrime. It is a speed demon in itself but it is most useful when tweaking lighting setups and texturing. I wish Carrara had something like it. Who knows, maybe later versions will. I do know that with Carrara's AO ability I have been able to tackle interior renderings which I would not have before. It has paid for itself already just based on that feature.

Ok, back to the topic at hand. Look forward to seeing more renders from this thread. I agree, blurred reflections are too slow in present form. I usually just fake it if I need that effect. A light noise in the bump channel. Not as accurate probably, but much faster and much more control.

[Reactor]

Oooo fun! I'll have a shot at this.

I've just been comparing Modo 202, Carrara and Mental Ray (XSI) so this looks like a fun place to keep the tests going.

EDIT: Hmmm okay, I see why people are saying blurry reflections are a bad idea I'd be hard pressed to do better than what Nichod's managed. The only issue I have with Carrara's renderer at the moment is (aside from the things like SSS and blurry reflections which are far too slow) is that when you try and use things that are slow, the program doesn't leave enough cpu power for you to cancel the render. Most of the time I'm left having to ctrl-alt-del the program to stop a complex render.

[Reactor]

On a side note- LoneGunman, do you have a scene with the shadow banding issue I could have a look at?