Indigo Renderer 3.0 Released!
-
@whaat said:
Many people think of Indigo (and other unbiased engines) as 'slow'. You can't just compare render times and judge solely based on that. You have to look at the overall workflow to produce a final image (and what quality that image will be). This includes setup time, test renders, tweaking of settings, and post production. These are all 'human labor' hours and cost a lot more money than machine rendering time.
Sure. I agree. Still, prospective buyers need to be aware that unbiased rendering as such is relatively slow.
@whaat said:
With Indigo, you will find that these 'human' hours can be greatly reduced and the final image quality is second to none.
True. I own quite a few renderers, and Indigo's output looks best, IMO.
@whaat said:
You can spend hours tweaking settings and materials with some other rendering engines only to get an image that pales in comparison to an Indigo render that was done without adjusting any settings at all.
Sorry, Dale, this is nonsense. Or at least, it only holds true in the case of people who don't know what they're doing.
I -and I'm no exeption- can set up a Vray render in 10 minutes or less, and it sure as hell won't pale compared to an Indigo render. It won't look as good - but the difference will be quite minimal.
http://forums.sketchucation.com/download/file.php?id=19499&mode=view
I will, however, gladly admit Indigo's ease of use is much greater than Vray's. Which in no small part is due to SkIndigo.
@whaat said:
So what if the render took 30 minutes to process instead of 5?
Even with gpu acceleration, there's no way Indigo will do a reasonably sized noise-free image of an indirectly lit interior in 30 minutes. An exterior or a product shot, well, maybe.
@whaat said:
My point is that you would be silly to not try Indigo just based on the fact that it's render times may be slower than another app.
True - but glossing over the facts doesn't do anyone any good.
-
@whaat said:
You can spend hours tweaking settings and materials with some other rendering engines only to get an image that pales in comparison to an Indigo render that was done without adjusting any settings at all.
@stinkie said:
Sorry, Dale, this is nonsense. Or at least, it only holds true in the case of people who don't know what they're doing.
OK, I admit this is a bit of an exaggeration but this was definitely my feeling a few years ago when I was just starting out with rendering. I tried several other rendering engines and could not get Indigo quality output no matter how much I played with the settings. In addition, we continue to hear stories from other new users who echo my sentiments.
@unknownuser said:
I -and I'm no exeption- can set up a Vray render in 10 minutes or less, and it sure as hell won't pale compared to an Indigo render. It won't look as good - but the difference will be quite minimal.
Of course, those more experienced in rendering can adapt to other rendering engines more quickly and get great output regardless of what engine they are using.
Thanks for your comments!
-
@whaat said:
OK, I admit this is a bit of an exaggeration but this was definitely my feeling a few years ago when I was just starting out with rendering. I tried several other rendering engines and could not get Indigo quality output no matter how much I played with the settings.
I remember being positively surprised by the quality Indigo produces without much tinkering as well. And yes, that is a rather big plus. Really stable app, too - I've had only a handful of crashes over the course of the years.
All in all, while I feel there's still room for improvement, Indigo's easily my favorite rendering app. It may not have all the bells and whistles of other unbiased renderers (some I'd like to see added, though!), but with regards to the quality of it's output, I feel it's ahead of the curve.
-
To further elaborate: I've just done a 'product shot' (no environment, single emitter) using path tracing, and I must say 3.0's pt is pretty sweet! I got a clean render in little over 3hrs - and I was rendering at 4000 x 7280.
Edit: I didn't use gpu acceleration.
-
Dale: What kind of GPU will be faster with the new Indigo? A gaming type (GeForce) or a Workstation type (Quadro)? I ask because both Lumion and Octane benefit more from gaming type GPUs, so I bought a GeForce GTX 570.
Also, although Indigo RT has no SSS, does it have thin translucency, as found, for example, in tree leaves and shoji screens?
BTW, when I activate GPU Acceleration, I can't use MLT or bidirectional Path Tracing, only plain old Path Tracing.
-
Small 30-second Path Tracing test:
Indigo RT, Core i5 750:
Indigo RT, Core i5 750 + GTX 570 (CUDA):
Indigo RT, Core i5 750 + GTX 570 (OpenCL):
-
@ecuadorian said:
Dale: What kind of GPU will be faster with the new Indigo? A gaming type (GeForce) or a Workstation type (Quadro)? I ask because both Lumion and Octane benefit more from gaming type GPUs, so I bought a GeForce GTX 570.
Also, although Indigo RT has no SSS, does it have thin translucency, as found, for example, in tree leaves and shoji screens?
BTW, when I activate GPU Acceleration, I can't use MLT or bidirectional Path Tracing, only plain old Path Tracing.
Hi,
I'm not the best to answer these questions. I think this type of question has been asked a few times on the Indigo forums so I would suggest searching there or emailing Indigo support. I suspect that the gaming card will be the best bang for your buck.
I do know that Indigo RT does support thin translucency (called Diffuse Transmitters in Indigo). GPU acceleration of MLT is a very new technology and I know that Glare is actively pursuing this as well but it has not yet been implemented.
-
I´m sorry but what do you mean with 32 full-color textures? what format is that? *.tga, *.tif? 32 rgba?
-
I just DL'd Indigo trial hours prior to the change. So far in my latest attempt to move further into rendering it has got to the results I wanted for an interior, the easiest of a collection of renderers. I have been working with Kerkythea a lot but can't seem to get the lights to cast effectively more than a few feet (wherein they look like welding torches on the nearest surface). But K-T seems to have much more control in the end.
Indigo seems to have
- Work inside your sketchUp model, no separate editing (and perhaps this means limitation compared to the studio setups), so no having to reload and re-edit, back load materials etc.
- Realistic or easily manageable lighting.
- Readily accessible material presets for the newbie.
- You can use 2 point perspective-- I haven't figured out how to do that in K-T.
So RT (which I will try next) might be a good step, especially on sale. Now to try the updates.
So, what is the deal with light layers? I appreciate in K-T that you can easily select each light, whereas in Skindigo (so far) I need to navigate to each light to edit it (though components work for identical lights). Will I find some easier way to do this in either version? Outliner?
Peter
-
@ecuadorian said:
Mouth-watering.
I bought Octane some time ago but I was disappointed by its limitation to just 32 full-color textures.
Dale, why is Indigo RT so cheap? Is there a limitation on the number of textures, too?
I just found the product comparison chart:
http://www.indigorenderer.com/product-comparisonSeems like I'll be missing SSS and IES. Is there a roadmap for future Indigo RT features?
Qustion for Ecuadorian.
What do you mean with: "limitation to just 32 full-color textures"?.
In Octane Render
Advertisement