Jump to content

octane vs redshift


Recommended Posts

Thanks MJV - I'm well aware of the differences, I have plenty of experience myself.

 

The OP also mentions compositing with video quite a lot. So while Octane certainly produces beautiful results - and by all accounts more easily, another factor for the OP to consider is speed.  If the OP can't get the number of frames produced they need, then no matter how beautiful an individual frame is - that's a fail.

 

I think the general 'gist' in this thread is correct:

Octane - beautiful results more easily.

Redshift - faster and more flexible, but steeper learning curve and more work / time in setup.

 

Having said that, the Redshift team have made great strides over the last year or two in automatic sampling and improving the UI. If you want a decent quality still and are not worried about render time, the setup is now one checkbox and one number.

 

I also think the whole 'biased' vs 'unbiased' debate is often blown out of proportion. All renderers - including Octane - are approximations of real world light behaviour.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Mike A said:

Thanks MJV - I'm well aware of the differences, I have plenty of experience myself.

 

The OP also mentions compositing with video quite a lot. So while Octane certainly produces beautiful results - and by all accounts more easily, another factor for the OP to consider is speed.  If the OP can't get the number of frames produced they need, then no matter how beautiful an individual frame is - that's a fail.

 

I think the general 'gist' in this thread is correct:

Octane - beautiful results more easily.

Redshift - faster and more flexible, but steeper learning curve and more work / time in setup.

 

Having said that, the Redshift team have made great strides over the last year or two in automatic sampling and improving the UI. If you want a decent quality still and are not worried about render time, the setup is now one checkbox and one number.

 

I also think the whole 'biased' vs 'unbiased' debate is often blown out of proportion. All renderers - including Octane - are approximations of real world light behaviour.

 

I wasn't trying to imply you don't know all this, but you asked and I wanted to outline for the OP in depth what I like about Octane and why, and explain that my personal preference for Octane is not really a critique of Redshift either but a personal preference. In terms of all renderers being approximations of real world light behavior, I guess you could say even an image captured with a camera is an approximation, and how good an approximation will depend on the camera's resolution, color science, and optics. But for me I just want every pixel perfectly path traced through every reflection and refraction and that is what Unbiased offers vs Biased, and that just appeals to me so greatly as a long time DP/cinematographer because in my mind it's a more natural approximation of real world light and that's the most important thing to me. 

Link to comment

As  an Octane user I would say, start with redshift. If you find it isnt realistic enough or takes too much work to get things realistic, then give octane a go. I say this because primarily because octane is the most crash-happy, buggiest piece of software I have ever used and that may be too much for some, but also because with redshift being under the same roof as c4d, it is obviously going to get a first class service in terms on integration and support from other third parties.

 

Octane is an F1 car, amazing abilities, but the engine tends to blow up every 50 laps

Redshift is a sensible family car, you only get a problem once a year and its a sensible choice for most people

Link to comment
4 hours ago, imashination said:

As  an Octane user I would say, start with redshift. If you find it isnt realistic enough or takes too much work to get things realistic, then give octane a go. I say this because primarily because octane is the most crash-happy, buggiest piece of software I have ever used and that may be too much for some, but also because with redshift being under the same roof as c4d, it is obviously going to get a first class service in terms on integration and support from other third parties.

 

Octane is an F1 car, amazing abilities, but the engine tends to blow up every 50 laps

Redshift is a sensible family car, you only get a problem once a year and its a sensible choice for most people

I recently tested RS in C4D and I am suprised how it is not really implemented being the new Maxon prime render engine for 2 years now. It completely feels like a third party engine and not like a part of C4D at all. RS Material stacking for example is a nightmare

Link to comment
20 hours ago, zeden said:

I recently tested RS in C4D and I am suprised how it is not really implemented being the new Maxon prime render engine for 2 years now. It completely feels like a third party engine and not like a part of C4D at all. RS Material stacking for example is a nightmare

 

I agree the integration is sorely lacking. I think the RS team has been badly overstretched for the last few years. Porting to Metal for the Mac users has been a major task. Maxon needed that before they can make RS the prime C4D render engine. Redshift RT (real-time) is another major task.

 

I also think there is something of a disconnect between the C4D developers and those from a background in higher end production rendering. Redshift - and other similar renderers -  are a serious step-up from something like physical and C4D doesn't really have the infrastructure to accommodate them. Does it have properly implemented linear color workflow? No.  Built in OCIO / ACES support? No. Do the Nodal materials work well with RS? No.... I could go on. I hope / expect these issues will be improved over time, but currently they are all areas that RS has had to work-around. That means integration is difficult. 

 

On the positive side I believe the RS development team has grown significantly over the last year or so. Hopefully that investment will bear fruit soon.

 

Link to comment
On 10/23/2021 at 7:18 PM, Mike A said:

 

I agree the integration is sorely lacking. I think the RS team has been badly overstretched for the last few years. Porting to Metal for the Mac users has been a major task. Maxon needed that before they can make RS the prime C4D render engine. Redshift RT (real-time) is another major task.

 

I also think there is something of a disconnect between the C4D developers and those from a background in higher end production rendering. Redshift - and other similar renderers -  are a serious step-up from something like physical and C4D doesn't really have the infrastructure to accommodate them. Does it have properly implemented linear color workflow? No.  Built in OCIO / ACES support? No. Do the Nodal materials work well with RS? No.... I could go on. I hope / expect these issues will be improved over time, but currently they are all areas that RS has had to work-around. That means integration is difficult. 

 

On the positive side I believe the RS development team has grown significantly over the last year or so. Hopefully that investment will bear fruit soon.

 

Good points. I just saw no reason for switching from Octane to RS at its current state of implementation. Octane is the better render engine by default and if integration is on even level I'll stick with it.

But RS is the future of C4D rendering for sure. I see lots of C4D people start using it and I have an increasing number of job requests for it. So it is time to make the jump as well and add it as second renderer.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community