Best inside SU renderer under $200
-
Yes it is not really objective. I think you should objectify the test or do not bother as it can show bias. Even with Cornell box one need to compare biased with biased and unbiased with unbiased.
For instance shaderlight is beta at moment without GI and artificial lighting.... Podium depends, and for that matter Twilight as well, on what preset one uses...etc... LUp is very easy to set up so can't inderstand your struggle.I have seen so many of these and none really gives me any more insight. It just show that you know how to set up one renderer better than the other.
-
If anything this proofs the fact that render engine comparison is difficult.
If you want to compare render times/quality, scenes must be stagged similarly and illuminated in same way... now some engines use totally different materials and lights even render settings are far from matching. Comparing biased and unbiased render wont help the situation, some renderers like twilight can do both in different quality levels. I think a complex scene is more suitable for a workflow testing than render time/quality testing, as there is so much things to control.
If I may suggest, take a relatively simple scene like cornell box or a variation of it (a recreation of a jotero cornell box is available here also as obj). Use different materials, rough, glossy/blurred, metals, glass... Controlled environment will reveal most obvious faults in engine, like energy loss errors and so. Hope this helps and good luck. (btw, if you end up using cornell box, Thea will offer you couple scenes - ready to render - just to get some good reference renders
) -
I agree 110% with both Notareal and Sepo...
I couldn't say this better myself, so allow me to take a quote from Pete (aka Solo):
@unknownuser said:
...you must realize having the tools does not make one a carpenter, meaning that there is a level of artistic talent and desire needed in order to set up a scene, composition, lighting, texturing, modeling, and so forth that requires one to have a genuine interest and find much enjoyment in what one is doing in order to succeed...
Although you've tested some different render applications, you must also acknowledge that it's difficult to compare the applications without a real deep insight experience with each of the different applications...
It's a really interesting topic, which is brought up from time to time...
I'd say that any user should go with whatever application they feels most comfortable with and also suits their needs the best...
Since they all offer some kind of a trial version, where the user can test the application, it should be possible to check it out...
Moreover... Altough you may feel one application is easy to adapt and also will meet your requirements, may be a completely different experience for another person...In a few years time, things have changed, current applications have (most likely) been upgraded and new applications have seen the light...
But - perhaps the most important part - you have developed your skills and thereby you may need other tools and more advanced applications to accomplish the projects you get... -
Sorry if I caused any trouble? It is not so much difficult as it is almost impossible to compare Rendering programs, with enough time they can ALL put our great work! And I should have also mentioned that Shaderlight is in beta form right now so I probably should not have even include it in the tests, Sorry for that.
As mentioned earlier, the test was to learn what things can do, I agree if youāre an expert at any one of the renderers out there you will get excellent results. I wish I had lots of hours to devote to each one of them! But since time is limited I do not have that option.
The original Idea was what could some one not knowing anything about rendering put together and get decent results when you are under pressure to produce decent images fast. As I mentioned earlier this test was narrowly focused on only residential/commercial interiors with a bit accent lighting that did not need to be perfect photorealistic, just good enough to show the mood of the space in a pleasing way. I tried to use lights in the exact same place as much as I could. I am not trying to say who is better then whom. Iām just trying to limit down the choices so I can actually spend some deep quality time with the one best for me.
My test was also to bring up answers that some of you already know that might help myself and others choose a direction? I have learned from others that there all great, it just depends what you want to do, and of course how well you know the program, but that didnāt help too much to make a choice.
I also should mention that I have an older computer that isnāt working up to snuff all the time. Thatās probably why I can not get Lightup or IRenderNXT to load, it has nothing to do with that I canāt figure out how to use them.
I choose to use a test example of something that I would be rendering instead of a ācornell?ā box or other object, as the out put was never expected to be perfect, just better then what I can make without help of a good rendering program.
-
While I more or less agree with those three gentlemen above, we have to admit that they are rendering experts (also professionally dealing with certain rendering applications).
So I completely understand you, Matt, when you are trying to find something that would fit your needs best. I do not find it wrong that you post your experimental images although true that it would be hard to make an unbiased and correct comparison even by an expert, not by you (or as a matter of fact by me for instance) as a beginner in the field.
If not for any better, these tests can show how far an interested beginner can get in a few hours with these different engines.
As for IrenderNXT, I cannot comment but LightUp definitely needs a decent, OpenGL compliant video card so that indeed may be the reason why you cannot use it on an old computer.
-
@gaieus said:
If not for any better, these tests can show how far an interested beginner can get in a few hours with these different engines.
Agree. Still a little return to my earlier post; using a well know simple scene one can make sure that he can get about a correct result. Most renderers do provide a cornell box that has correct materials/settings - so if anything, it's a good starting point to learn the engine. When you know that you can get a proper result, it's far more easier to continue with some challenging scene.
-
Don't forget what I started my post above i.e. I agreed with you guys.
Probably because I have also seen a lot of topics about this and already know that this kind of comparison is futile.Yet I still found it interesting...
-
Based on what I see I think you are best served by using IDX renditioner based on your tests.
It's not about what can do the most, it's about what can you use well... you stated your goals for a render engine and it looks like that fits the bill nicely. Sometimes more is just more and if you don't use it then it's not really useful.
Best,
Jason. -
I've also tried to conduct a review of many of the renderers in an exterior (landscape) context. I am a beginner and the review was to cover what does the default setting give the viewer. These were using the latest versions (in some cases beta) in demo or trial mode. And I learned it is hard to compare renderers... They all have areas where they excel, they are all built on inspiration (and perspiration), and can show off wonderful things in the hands of an expert. Any feedback on the review is welcomed.
http://sketchupland.posterous.com/a-personal-review-of-sketchup-renderers
-
Matt, There is no "best inside SU renderer under $200". IMO, aside from "features", most rendering applications use the same math, and primarily differentiate themselves by their interface. Each of us are vested in a application by some form of ownership. After you have spent some time with a particular application, it is unlikely that you will attempt to learn something new unless the return is justified.
Advertisement