yes, after looking more into EEVEE I think I will later, once mastered, use it only for
certain projects, where i don't have to deal with ground shadows etc., like flying
logos or objects in the air and such.
After using and testing this fantastic denoiser yesterday I came to the same
conclusion. It now makes Cycles so superfast that I also see currently no
need for EEVEE. But I keep an eye on EEVEE development and I am also very
thankful for Chipp's great EEVEE course.
- EVEE: No photorealism. It's like a sophisticated "game engine" renderer but no photorealistic.
But actually nothing comparable for example to the beast: UNITY! (and also UNREAL)
- CYCLES: if you NEED photorealistic renderings.
Very high rendering times obviously, even if you have a super powerful machine.
But it's one of the BEST renderer of the market.
Maybe if you purchase the Eevee course from Chipp you can also archive photorealistic
renderings with Eevee … :-)
Regarding Cycles render times, this is also nonsense what you post. You maybe are used
to ray tracers and not path tracers (which Cycles is). Metin has posted the Denoiser link,
so you can render in a fraction of time too if you use the denoiser and set Cycles to lower
samples.
I don't want to heat the debate, but try to be honest with my answer.
(Sorry for the late reply, i am currently sick and not in the mood to
discuss online)
> Well...what can I say?
> Are you serious?
> Are you sure you are talking to me (Marco mkdm).
> I render 3D images since early '90s.
I was more or less meaning your rendering skills and not
the years of how long you use 3D Software. If you look
closely at your images, for example, you have posted at
the MoI gallery you will see that you use cheap HDRI's,
which are perspective distorted due to wrong settings.
Then i believe that you also don't know what a safe camera
zone is. Your objects are cut off at the sides of the
images. People seeing your images will for sure think
that you are a beginner, when it comes to 3D renderings
and don't believe you that you do 3D renderings since the 90's.
> Do you really know what a real photorealism is?
> Hmmm...think about it.
I have always failed the Autodesk test (5 out of 10) :-D.
But check out Chipp's introduction video for Eevee …
He also uses the term photorealism. He is a pro and
he knows what he is talking about. ;-)
But maybe you can tell us what "real" photorealism
is when it comes to 3D! Is there also an "unreal"
photorealism?
Take it easy and see my comments as constructive
critics. If i sounded to harsh with my words i apologize!
First of all. No problem for me with you.
Ok, honestly your reply disappointed me a little bit because it sounded a little bit harsh.
But, no problem. I understand that sometimes it's not easy to communicate the right things on a forum.
For example, English is clearly not my native language, and sometimes it's difficult to write my thoughts.
With that said.
I perfectly know that HDRI is not photorealism, or fast renderings obtained with software like 3D-Coat or similar is not photorealism, or other things like that :)
Etc...etc...
A true photorealism involves a biased rendering engine, that can provide lots of complex calculation trying to mimic the behavior of the light and the materials into the real world.
Also, I perfectly know, and these was totally INTENTIONAL, that all of my posts of 3D-renderings here on this forum are TOTALLY not photorealisc :)
In fact here I almost always wanted to share with other guys, fast and quick concept renderings, just for the fun of modelling something very easy and very fast and doing a similar quick and dirt renderings.
And consider that also, as I've said some times ago, actually I'm so bored by all the tech things related to 3D that I really don't want to spend my time actually with all the tons of tech stuff about rendering and modelling that I've played with and studied during almost two decades.
(In fact actually I'm almost totally returning to the study of 2D fine arts and digital painting)
With that said, again, talking about photorealism, I do not consider photorealistic, NONE of the examples your provided of enterior renderings in EVEE.
That kind of rendering are absolutely far miles away from a real photorealistic scenes.
I'm confident that also you agree with me about this point.
And, YES, when I named "UNITY" or "UNREAL" I perfectly know that they're not photorealistic rendering engine.
They simply are (at least UNITY), EVEE on steroids.
As you know a true photorealism involves so many things, that a simple HDRI or GI environment, or a render engine like EVEE, can't provide.
Anyway.
I really hope that you understand my point of view and the fact that (I repeat) I have no problem with you.
To be honest, I have to say you, just in order to avoid misunderstanding, that really I don't want here to start and endless debate, so please don't think bad if I will not reply any further message about this argument.
> A true photorealism involves a biased rendering engine
I think you mean unbiased.
BTW. The term photorealism was coined long ago, before
modern biased and unbiased render engines saw their light.
I remember very well CGI stuff from the mid 80's which was
named photoreal too. I still have that on VHS tapes! :-)
If you would compare such footage with today standards you
would not agree that this is also photorealism.
A quick Wikipedia look-up for photorealism and non-photorealism
might help.
O.K. back to work … let our creative juices flow and i will end
this discussion now too. :-)
Hi Stefan
I think to jump into Blender,and buy Chipp's course
If i remember, you got Maxwell,and being you an expert about renderers can you tell me differences about Cycles and Maxwell?
I did all my renders with Fry before,then Arion that is similar to Maxwell
Thanks:M
I am by no means a render expert … I am only a 3D doodler, so to speak.
However, I try to do images the possibly easiest way to produce and that they
are for me showable. Maxwell Render allows me to do this because it is for me
easy to use and very logical. I am still using and old version, without GPU support.
The reason why i started to play with Cycles is that i can produce nice images as
well but with much shorter render times. And thanks to Metins tip about the denoiser
i can render now much faster with Cycles (or Maxwell …). That said the learning
curve to use Blender and Cycles is higher for me, because there are much
more settings (node set-up for shaders etc.), but once mastered i should be good
to go.
Eevee is a totally different beast, i was all ears when Chipp released his
course, because i have found no similar course for learning Eevee, which i like
to use later too.
When it comes to direct comparison of render engines there is a nice comparison
available to check out the pros and cons of Cycles and Maxwell.
Cycles is unbiased like Maxwell, Fry and Arion,
but the terminology for Material definitions
and its used parameters are slightly different
and you can use nodes for the material creation
as well, which Maxwell does not have.
Lighting wise there are no watt/lumen etc. presets/
settings for different lamp types in Cycles like Maxwell has,
nor a physically sun you can set the hours / day etc.
I think if you download Blender and play
with Cycles or Evee settings a bit you see
the differences compared to Arion and Fry.
while reading about lighting with Cycles and wondering about translating some things
from Maxwell i found this very interesting article for Cycles, explaining how to create
an accurate sun intensity model and using kelvin values for emitters via the blackbody
node. While not an add-on i think it could be very useful for some of us.
Just a minor remark: Cycles is not unbiased. The term unbiased is used for renderers that do no simplifications to speed up rendering. An unbiased renderer will have a minimal amount of settings and will always converge toward a result that is as realistic as possible.
Maxwell is an unbiased renderer, but Cycles is a biased renderer that uses methods to simplify the result in order to gain speed. This doesn't mean that Cycles is not a realistic renderer. V-Ray is also a biased renderer, and the physics math behind the light ray calculations is correct, but rendering is sped up by using methods like a light bounce limit, ray tresholds, blurring glossy reflections, noise reduction and other approximations that increase speed at the expense of realism. Using the right settings, a biased renderer can yield very similar results to an unbiased renderer while offering more speed.
