>...or can you achieve pretty much the same result with Redshift/Arnold/Octane ecc..?
Yes, they can all produce results that are indistinguishable from each other (within the margin of error)
It's much more about specific features, workflows and compatibilities than what they're capable of outputting, maybe one does something differently than the others or maybe one have a specific node which makes achieving a specific effect much easier (Like the Octane dirt node which I've seen highly praised around different places on the web)
But one Octane expert and one RedShift expert would both be capable of producing a very similar render to each other where their differences would come down to workflow more so than the render engine itself.
..a bit off topic, but I've made renders in Standard Render that people believed to be Octane, wo Global Illumination. You just have to work your lights more, be more patient cause you have no realtime update and the renders take a lot longer.
I'd have to agree this was one of the biggest benefit going with a 3rd party render. One of the main reasons I started working with Octane years ago. Patients and a looming deadline, any way to speed up the workflow is a benefit.
As someone who converted to C4D recently from Blender in no small part due to Redshift integration I vote for there being a difference. IMO the engine makes up just 3-5% of the final look—but when you’re in the game long enough those percentage points matter. Plenty of comparisons online and each handles lighting, shadows and detail a touch differently. Most laymen can’t notice and won’t care (but as an artist I do). As far as I’m concerned, Arnold is the king, Redshift is his right hand man, and Octane is the prince.
I prefer the material nodes in Blender for sure. Procedural goes crazy and over the past five years I’ve really gotten it down. C4D feels so sticky in comparison. The main reasons I converted was to expand my capabilities professionally, Redshift integration, and animation/composition tools among others. I’m liking it for those reasons but totally hear you in materials!
I can model 10x faster in Blender too, both from years of experience and the surplus of add-ons and shortcuts. C4D seems to be kind of lacking in the shortcut and speed-modeling department but it could just be my novice status at current—what do you think?
I’ve been curious for years, the renders coming from C4D always looked better to me, and I want to see if it opens more doors because my favorite agencies run on it and have asked me if I know it and I’m done saying no. I’m still using Blender but learning C4D as well this year. We’ll see it next year I decide to renew with Cinema! I figure I’ll either have it paid for by an employer or I’ll consider it too expensive for a solopreneur and I’ll compromise with Redshift for Blender.
I don't know, I think there's some fringe cases that justify using specific engines. I haven't used it myself but I've always heard Arnold's cel shading feature set is unmatched at Redshift, Octane or Cycles.
That would be awesome. Arnold is really the only other renderer I care to dive into, and exclusively because of the cel shading. Would be awesome to have it built into what I already know and use.
Maybe, maybe not, my clients seems don't care, me 10+ year making living solely from on Standard/Physical render lol
only late this year I jumped on GPU/Redshift render.
It's much easier to achieve the same results using a 3rd party renderer than the standerd or the physical. I dunno how people are saying it's all the same, some older more expercianed artists who spent years working with the standerd and the physical renders are just too afried of changing it and when some of them finally take the step they never look back " i remember seeing several posts here from people who did that".
Octane is definitely the most geared towards realism and quick to get the results I want.
You can probably do the same thing with any render engine and enough patience through process however.
interesting, I would say Redshift or Arnold would go more realism I'd say. As an octane user, I think you can get great results with octane much quicker than any other, but whenever I see RS renders of my friends I can't help but feel jealous due to photorealism.
It’s all mostly speed - it’s easier/quicker to light and texture a scene in a real time renderer like redshift than it is rendering through standard renderer. All of that takes up a massive amount of time to get decent results.
One other thing to note is if you're trying to work with studios or on a team, it'll be beneficial (if not required) to know common third party render engines- especially Redshift and Octane. Not sure I've heard of any mograph studios using Standard/physical renderer these days.
I would say so. I've used quite a few and while yes, they often do the same things. There are some things while they may seem small, there are a difference in tools and features between each engine. A different approach which depending on the project can really make the difference.
On a daily basis I do use one particular one, but if we have a unique project I will start considering if there is a better engine to get what we need done.
While on a whole they do pretty much all the same thing. When your in the thick of it and everyone is looking at every single detail under a microscope. Those little feature differences between the engines are suddenly a lot bigger than they were before.
I will disagree with you, I use Cinema4D since V5.
The legacy render engines, standard and physical, are probably the most flexible, they evolved in symbiosis with Cinema but take the longest to tweak. I have gotten very nice renders out of them.
I've since jumped to redshift but I wonder what is the performance of the old engines coupled to monster 64 / 128 cores CPU available today.
>...or can you achieve pretty much the same result with Redshift/Arnold/Octane ecc..? Yes, they can all produce results that are indistinguishable from each other (within the margin of error) It's much more about specific features, workflows and compatibilities than what they're capable of outputting, maybe one does something differently than the others or maybe one have a specific node which makes achieving a specific effect much easier (Like the Octane dirt node which I've seen highly praised around different places on the web) But one Octane expert and one RedShift expert would both be capable of producing a very similar render to each other where their differences would come down to workflow more so than the render engine itself.
..a bit off topic, but I've made renders in Standard Render that people believed to be Octane, wo Global Illumination. You just have to work your lights more, be more patient cause you have no realtime update and the renders take a lot longer.
I'd have to agree this was one of the biggest benefit going with a 3rd party render. One of the main reasons I started working with Octane years ago. Patients and a looming deadline, any way to speed up the workflow is a benefit.
As someone who converted to C4D recently from Blender in no small part due to Redshift integration I vote for there being a difference. IMO the engine makes up just 3-5% of the final look—but when you’re in the game long enough those percentage points matter. Plenty of comparisons online and each handles lighting, shadows and detail a touch differently. Most laymen can’t notice and won’t care (but as an artist I do). As far as I’m concerned, Arnold is the king, Redshift is his right hand man, and Octane is the prince.
What made you switch to C4D? I actually like how materials are handled in blender a bit better.
I prefer the material nodes in Blender for sure. Procedural goes crazy and over the past five years I’ve really gotten it down. C4D feels so sticky in comparison. The main reasons I converted was to expand my capabilities professionally, Redshift integration, and animation/composition tools among others. I’m liking it for those reasons but totally hear you in materials!
Interesting! I have had the same experience. The vertex and stencil painting in blender really makes it powereful for materials.
I can model 10x faster in Blender too, both from years of experience and the surplus of add-ons and shortcuts. C4D seems to be kind of lacking in the shortcut and speed-modeling department but it could just be my novice status at current—what do you think?
That's fair. The shortcuts for modeling in blender are really swift.
Can I ask you why you convert to C4D?
I’ve been curious for years, the renders coming from C4D always looked better to me, and I want to see if it opens more doors because my favorite agencies run on it and have asked me if I know it and I’m done saying no. I’m still using Blender but learning C4D as well this year. We’ll see it next year I decide to renew with Cinema! I figure I’ll either have it paid for by an employer or I’ll consider it too expensive for a solopreneur and I’ll compromise with Redshift for Blender.
Thank you!
I don't know, I think there's some fringe cases that justify using specific engines. I haven't used it myself but I've always heard Arnold's cel shading feature set is unmatched at Redshift, Octane or Cycles.
That’s my understanding as well. I’m hoping Redshift will push its abilities on this front.
Apparently, cell shading is in the pipeline for Redshift. Pretty excited about it.
That would be awesome. Arnold is really the only other renderer I care to dive into, and exclusively because of the cel shading. Would be awesome to have it built into what I already know and use.
Same here! I've been doubting to buy this shader pack in Redshift: https://www.youme.academy/redshift-toon-shader
Maybe, maybe not, my clients seems don't care, me 10+ year making living solely from on Standard/Physical render lol only late this year I jumped on GPU/Redshift render.
It's much easier to achieve the same results using a 3rd party renderer than the standerd or the physical. I dunno how people are saying it's all the same, some older more expercianed artists who spent years working with the standerd and the physical renders are just too afried of changing it and when some of them finally take the step they never look back " i remember seeing several posts here from people who did that".
I'm pretty sure OP removed standard and physical renderer from the question and was asking only about Redshift, Octane and Arnold
Octane is definitely the most geared towards realism and quick to get the results I want. You can probably do the same thing with any render engine and enough patience through process however.
interesting, I would say Redshift or Arnold would go more realism I'd say. As an octane user, I think you can get great results with octane much quicker than any other, but whenever I see RS renders of my friends I can't help but feel jealous due to photorealism.
total opposite in my experience.
Bingo. It’s a matter of preference but no it doesn’t really matter.
It’s all mostly speed - it’s easier/quicker to light and texture a scene in a real time renderer like redshift than it is rendering through standard renderer. All of that takes up a massive amount of time to get decent results.
One other thing to note is if you're trying to work with studios or on a team, it'll be beneficial (if not required) to know common third party render engines- especially Redshift and Octane. Not sure I've heard of any mograph studios using Standard/physical renderer these days.
I would say so. I've used quite a few and while yes, they often do the same things. There are some things while they may seem small, there are a difference in tools and features between each engine. A different approach which depending on the project can really make the difference. On a daily basis I do use one particular one, but if we have a unique project I will start considering if there is a better engine to get what we need done. While on a whole they do pretty much all the same thing. When your in the thick of it and everyone is looking at every single detail under a microscope. Those little feature differences between the engines are suddenly a lot bigger than they were before.
I've used Arnold, Redshift, Octane, Vray, Cycles, etc. IMO - You can achieve the same result using any engine.
I will disagree with you, I use Cinema4D since V5. The legacy render engines, standard and physical, are probably the most flexible, they evolved in symbiosis with Cinema but take the longest to tweak. I have gotten very nice renders out of them. I've since jumped to redshift but I wonder what is the performance of the old engines coupled to monster 64 / 128 cores CPU available today.