Test on empty scenes makes no sense. Make a scene with 10-50 million unique polygons, add 500 light sources, and test again. For example on a night exterior scene.
I mean I tried all of them and I can say Arnold Renderer was the only one that caught my attention in so many ways also I'm pretty sure RenderMan is on the same level as Arnold, the others are very good if you are a freelancer and want to finish things quicker and never give a damn about quailty or perfaction.
I personally consider overestimated the idea you can switch from CPU to GPU in Arnold...What should I do? Run the same rendering with my Ryzen 5950X and later on with my RTX 3080T to check who is the winner? Please, they are just making clear they did not achieve yet what should be done: use both hardware together to achieve a faster result! This should be the real goal. Arnold is extremely demanding and the rendering time is really long...this is why make a good use of all the hardware you have could be really useful. Vray is a faster engine and they did it...I hope Arnold will do it as well :D
You mean hybrid renderer? Many years ago I read one article on CGSociety about such stuff. Couple developers from couple company discuss, and one dude from Otoy say that GPU are faster, but CPU have his own advantages. SO obviously hybrid render engine is solution. But such things are notoriously hard to develop. As far I know only Tea render achieve this in successful way. But unfortunately because of couple reasons he never gain popularity. These days this is almost dead product, develop is stall, and they are heavily focused on Sketchup . I don't think that Arnold, Redshift, Vray, Corona, etc. ever will try to develop hybrid version of his render engines. Spending time on research and development they see as waste of money.
redshift has CPU renderer now.. Vray does too and Arnold does too... Redshift CPU renderer is slow. Vrays CPU renderer is fast and the GPU is slower than redshifts but its not unacceptable.. its not bad at all... The thing is that Redshift smokes the other renderers with FOG and illumination... that;s one thing that will keep people using it. Its good but then for me it seems to crash a lot. Now that Vray is getting all these great new features I may have to move over to that in the future..
GPU has no caustics also has few lighting issues when rendering refraction e.g. if you simulate a water tank and put inside an object it will render dark(er) than it has to be and no setting can fix it, switching to CPU solves that problem. That's the only flaw of V-Ray, also it doesn't support few things that CPU supports.
Great video! you've not touched on redshifts new RT render, massively improves lookdev, but sadly requires a 2000 series + Nvidia GPU. Also, when I did some render tests myself a few months ago I was surprised to see that Corona was faster than vray. Maybe I didn't know how to properly optimize the render for vray, but coronas results impressed me. Arnold being Arnold was so behind on speed it's unbelievable. The GPU render on it I hate, cause it's super unstable and doesn't work half the time, you said you were happy with it but last time I tried it, it felt like it was made just to say that they have one and move on. You should look into octane, while it's the least versatile from all of these during work it's simplicity is loved because it's the easiest to get good looking results in fast.
After suffering with Arnolds long render times I switched to Vray 5 and have not looked back since. Interior car shot took 40 minutes with Arnold and still had artifacts on an rtx 2070. Vray had that done in a couple of minutes. Sorry dont remember the exact time but there is just no comparison. I personally did not notice any reason in quality to stick to Arnold. Disclaimer I am a generalist, hardsurface modeler and sculptor so not someone who generalizes in render engines like a shading artist or lightning artist. Take it with pinch of salt.
Would like to see an updated course on Arnold for Maya.. Learned quite a bit from it but its quite old now and quite basic, a more in depth course will be an auto buy for me.
Love Vray and Arnold, both great engine, but Arnold makes more realistic results and they have amazing skin shader I've ever seen. Great video. Thanks!
@@Gromic2k Redshift & V-Ray if you're going for speed + GPU support, V-Ray and Corona are most popular for archviz. Corona, 3Delight or Arnold if you need more accuracy.
Thanks! I used V-Ray for a long time (3dsMax) but on my new project I'm doing Arnold. This largely has to do with the fact it comes with Max. I think that will have its advantages. I'm sad to hear about the rendering speed though, which I can see. I'm working to help fix that including doing GPU. A quick difference for me is I think may be I like Arnolds lights better than V-Ray. V-Ray material has specular and some things I like. A big one is the buffer. In production rendering it seems Arnold uses Max stripped down buffer but V-Ray has a lot to offer in its render panel. Oh, also bleh on AOV's and a lot are missing. I've had to build some by hand using tutorials online. How it works and the name AOV is annoying - I think V-Ray nailed that and it worked very well for me and my needs. Also V-Ray comes with a great material library built in easy to understand and acess and use and Max Arnold I still don't know of anything outside of the short list in the Physical Material. I'm not sure how to access an Arnold Material Library inside Max.
i only use arnold because of the intel odin denoiser, its crazy what you can do with only 2 or 3 camera AA samples. no joke :) please try it. otherwise i would not be able to use arnold. i hope they keep it in
Great video, but when you say that speed is the most important aspect, i don't think it should be. In my opinion it doesn't matter if a engine is the fastest if it never achieves the result you expect.
For a skilled user speedy iterations is what matters. Ofc all 3 can provide good results in terms of image quality Arnold has no competition in terms of quality when you pump settings, but iterations are so slow..and then a huge pain render out image sequences. So the best word in this case is: compromise (vray)
Agree, not to mention how relative is speed. Just about 3-4 years ago, everyone would have given their half arm to have the speed of any of these current engines with the modern HW, but for today we still want more. I would say any of these are plenty fast the difference you measure is not (that) significant compared to quality.
i think some people forget the time it takes to get your render looking good... one simple example is you take the sun and sky rig and get a camera in each render.. Render a sphere... in redshift it looks like shit...contrasty and harsh. you will have to go in and adjust everything... In vray it looks beautiful the gradients are smooth and gorgeous...
@@SmokingMirror "Arnold has no competition in terms of quality" ppl keep saying this but it's rubbish, the Emperor's New Clothes. Ppl at Pixar would be laughing the butts off at you too - while trying to string you up at the same time
It really depends what you're using it for. For animation, V-ray followed by redshift is the most efficient, But for me, I model objects in either still shots or very short animation for commercials, so I really prefer Arnold's functions and capabilities.
Hi. Will there be an update to your 'Comprehensive Introduction to Arnold for 3ds Max'. This was a great course, but there have been a lot of new features to Arnold in 3ds Max since I purchased this course in 2019.
Considering Arnold is free with cheap 3dsmax indie license. It is the best for now. But V-ray have alot more features and have good native support for Chaos Phoenix simulator.
The most complex rendering engine I've encountered is Arnold Your words are biased for what you love, nothing more And the easiest engine to encounter and the best is Corona But the problem is that it is not compatible with many of the additions
If you find Arnold still complex enough, you just need to spend more time learning the renderer itself instead of pushing it. There has to be a reason why Arnold's the standard in the film industry. It's robust and stable for most of the stuff. Hair, VDB, particles etc. Arnold by far supports mo-graph modules the most in C4D too. If you ever want to find jobs in the right industry, Arnold/Redshift will be your best choice to start with because they share similar shader settings and they fit in productions well. No animation studios would use Corona in their production pipelines. If you work freelance, I guess that's fine and its up to your preferences. Corona renders super quick and I loved it since it came out. Corona has a strong dev team but sth happened since Chaos Group purchased it. Corona is only nice for Archi-Visualization and it's not production friendly for mograph stuff. It maybe easy to learn, but it won't help you becoming a better artist.
@@nickli608 "Arnold's the standard in the film industry" Where on earth did you hear that rubbish - Vray and Renderman are at least as much "the standard" in feature films, Arnold doesn't have anything on them, and is slower than both.
@@schmoborama Are you a professional in the film industry? It is a renderer that's production-proven & ready to go. I'm not trying to deny Vray/Renderman are widely used, but saying "Arnold isn't the standard" and it was a "Rubbish"? Nah, I disagree. I was arguing Arnold was in fact quite easy to set up in that comment. Yes, Arnold can be slow sometimes, but it's quite easy to learn and it gives you very reaslitic rendering results. Once you master Arnold, you can pretty share the same knowledge to other renderers. Just the matter of finding buttons.
@@nickli608 "Are you a professional in the film industry?" Yes and I'm dealing with arnold's BS right now as we speak. "It is a renderer that's production-proven & ready to go" Sure ( but less ready to go than vray while requiring bigger render farms ), but that's not the same as 'the standard'. That phrase puts it above vray and renderman, which is false I'm on my 5th show using arnold and the only reasons I can see for anyone preferring it is that Sony uses it for their movies ( which they did b/c they own their own version of it, which is b/c they want to avoid licensing fees as much as possible ; they even have their own image viewers, chat, and lighting tool, Katana ), and because lots of guys like you are saying "it's the best", for... some reason, and despite all the reasons that it's not.
V-Ray and Arnold GPU version sucks vram very fast. Redshift on the other hand has very good memory optimization. It can handle much more geometry and displacement maps. Redshift is very much fine with 8 gig cards. For V-Ray GPU you must go for RTX 3090 to fit the same scene in vram.
Do you have plans at all to do a V-ray5 course for c4D? I noticed you have one for 3DsMax, but the one you have for c4D I think is a much older version.
I really wanted to ask the same question! I wanted to install vray 5 for C4D but I could not find any lessons... :( I tried Arnold 7 but honestly the rendering time is crazy and the engine has many issues...
Max has obviously better or "richer" integration and there's many plugins for Max compatible with V-Ray, V-Ray also supports many native 3ds Max nodes which are pretty decent, has viewport preview similar to Blender's Eevee so that's about it. But the V-Ray alone itself I think is about same in every 3D Package, unlike Octane for example which is slightly different in every package and is best in C4D ( I think it has more small features than in Max or Blender for example ). But overall the biggest differences of renderers in certain packages you will usually see in the material editor UI/UX as the renderer can't change it's functionality and also how the software handles the scene/materials and other properties, pretty much some workflow and UI/UX differences because of different "platform" but the rest will be same everywhere.
redshift crashes too much for me. I have a maxed out machine.. 192 gigs of ram 36 processors.. 2 x 3090s....2200 watt power supply.. I am searching for another renderer. Maybe they all crash too much but this was just wasting too much time.. I must restart my machine or restart redshift at least 5 times per day...sometimes it is not bad.. sometimes its worse... I have the latest drivers and all that crap... I know its the GPU workflow because things dont crash if the IPR is off...I think thats just part of the pipeline. GPUs crash... people forget about all of that...I would rather have slower render time but a clean workflow not full of crashes...
Thank you for stating what should be obvious, although, with Vray 5, It became clear that the direction of Vray is being mostly unbiased (using brute force for primary and secondary engine all the time)
@@abdelhakkhalil7684 That's not true. Vray 5's default settings is Light Cache for the secondary engine, not Brute Force. Also, the developers of Vray themselves discourage using Brute Force for the secondary engine unless absolutely necessary.
@@bgtubber I absolutely agree, I am not saying brute force all the way, but I am suggesting that the devs are clearly moving towards an unbiased approached. Btw, brute force for both primary and secondary engines doesn't always mean a better result.
Agreed but Arnold crashes a lot, sometimes just undoing while IPR on or chaining frame on timeline , redshift is like rock solid never crashes, haven't tried Vray
have you updated to lastest one I also used to get a lot of crashes while viewing IPR and undoing But in the lastest version I think they fixed it Doesn't crashes anymore for me
If you think Arnold is "realistic," let me take an excerpt from their manual: "'Hard' caustics from small but bright light sources (e.g., a spot light through a cognac glass) are not currently possible. Arnold uses simple, uni-directional path tracing. Rays start at the camera, not at the lights. Arnold does not use bi-directional path tracing (nor any other bi-directional technique, such as photon mapping, which fires rays from the lights). When using standard lights, like point lights and spot lights, which are idealized lights with zero area, i.e. point lights, it is simply impossible for Arnold's GI/reflection/refraction rays to hit the lights. Therefore, there are no caustics. Uni-directional path tracing is so 2015...
I like ART render. It build in in 3dsmax. Wery simple. Only maybe missing glow effect. But ARnold not support wery bright emmisive materials while ART perfectly support. So this is big advantage for ART. But ART maybe slowest renderer. It cpu based. I have 5900x And rtx 3060 and seems with GPU ARnold enders faster with about same quality. Power cunsumps about same. About 240 W from socket whole PC consumps while rendering. Vray and Redshift not tested. Big inprovement is in ARNOLD while in Arnold 7 addaded optix denoiser by defoult. If no subsfase scatering, then it wery good denoising, I say. Arold have some eerrors. ART is more stable less issues I get rendering with art. Arnold have some isues. If you have many core cpu, then ART is not bad renderer.
cycles x may win with speed, but for quality and materials vray and arnold are at top, and you can use cycles only in blender, but for vray and arnold, both supports lot of softwares, it's easier to switch between diff softwares. arnold is used in lot of movies, it's lot slower, but quality it's produces is amazing i use vray, it's lot faster than arnold and little slower than cyclesx, it's used in some movies, but arnold is at top cycles is faster but it's only limited to blender, and quality it's produces doesn't match other engines, you will get cool results with it, but volumatrics, particles, fx are better in arnold.
temporal optix denoiser just been added to blender cycles 3.1 alpha, expect it to other optix denoisers like arnold and redshift in the following months
Arnold gives the best quality result, that's the most important thing to me personally. V-ray and Redshift is better for speed, which is necessary for mass production, specially animation.
Balderdash. Can you wait 24hrs for just one frame of the best render? B/c that's what it would take arnold to render similar settings to vray - I can barely afford to use a depth of 1 indirect diff or spec in arnold, and frequently have to use ZERO. While I can use *25* in Vray.
@@schmoborama I've been using Arnold for a while now, it's not that bad as you're describing. I use vray when I'm in a rush. V-ray has this unatural feel to it that I'm not a big fan of.
@@ultravioletron Vray's been used on Marvel movies for years, and you're claiming Arnold is better than that, and better than Renderman too - ? And Arnold is slower than both of them.
Cycles is not bad renderer. He is also sometime faster than Redshift, at least for me. He have many fails... just like any other renderer. He is good enough for mid range jobs, some people even work for Mercedes or Dassault. So, yeah, he is enough good, especially for this 'price'... Nothing more, nothing less.
To be honest Arnold is by far the worst of all I tried (Corona, V-Ray, Arnold, Redshift). The most complicated UI and when I compared all the renders the worst result was from Arnold. Not to mention it is constantly crashing and so buggy (materials not always visible in the viewport despite being connected to both Beauty and Viewport), denoiser is awful, shaders are far from intuitive and more and more! The most realistic (despite it is pure to personal taste) is Redshift followed by Corona then V-Ray (CPU) and last V-Ray (GPU). So I noticed you are working mostly with Arnold as you also sell your course in Mograph it is obvious why you chose Arnold... but the real truth is that Arnold is not even in the top 3!
Completely ignoring Cycles X in Blender... come on, in terms of image quality Cycles is way better than Vray and especially better than Redshift. Arnold is super slow and pure time waster at the moment. That makes Cycles X the best compromise between quality (unbiased path tracer) and speed.
@@Mycelium just yes, I've been working with arnold and It struggles so much with their times, cycles X is incredibly faster and It can achieve the same results with little touches
Test on empty scenes makes no sense. Make a scene with 10-50 million unique polygons, add 500 light sources, and test again. For example on a night exterior scene.
So Unreal Engine, And with offline renders Renderman and Arnold. Other i think have no chance to render massive scenes.
speed of gpu vastly decrease vs cpu as scene becomes bigger, you need to take that in consideration as well.
I mean I tried all of them and I can say Arnold Renderer was the only one that caught my attention in so many ways also I'm pretty sure RenderMan is on the same level as Arnold, the others are very good if you are a freelancer and want to finish things quicker and never give a damn about quailty or perfaction.
How is Cycles? What can you say about it?
Average, sub-par, just like blender. @igorthelight
@@Itsyesfahadand how do you like Cycles compared to Redshift? Would you recommend doing the switch from Blender to C4D+Redshift?
Nope, I only use 3ds Max and Arnold, V-Ray, Corona @@jbdh6510
Arnold Renderer finished the whole rendering engines saga for me.
I personally consider overestimated the idea you can switch from CPU to GPU in Arnold...What should I do? Run the same rendering with my Ryzen 5950X and later on with my RTX 3080T to check who is the winner? Please, they are just making clear they did not achieve yet what should be done: use both hardware together to achieve a faster result! This should be the real goal. Arnold is extremely demanding and the rendering time is really long...this is why make a good use of all the hardware you have could be really useful. Vray is a faster engine and they did it...I hope Arnold will do it as well :D
You mean hybrid renderer? Many years ago I read one article on CGSociety about such stuff. Couple developers from couple company discuss, and one dude from Otoy say that GPU are faster, but CPU have his own advantages. SO obviously hybrid render engine is solution. But such things are notoriously hard to develop. As far I know only Tea render achieve this in successful way. But unfortunately because of couple reasons he never gain popularity. These days this is almost dead product, develop is stall, and they are heavily focused on Sketchup . I don't think that Arnold, Redshift, Vray, Corona, etc. ever will try to develop hybrid version of his render engines. Spending time on research and development they see as waste of money.
redshift has CPU renderer now.. Vray does too and Arnold does too... Redshift CPU renderer is slow. Vrays CPU renderer is fast and the GPU is slower than redshifts but its not unacceptable.. its not bad at all... The thing is that Redshift smokes the other renderers with FOG and illumination... that;s one thing that will keep people using it. Its good but then for me it seems to crash a lot. Now that Vray is getting all these great new features I may have to move over to that in the future..
Vray has the best hair shader of them all, and has many feature like round corner, caustics etc.
GPU has no caustics also has few lighting issues when rendering refraction e.g. if you simulate a water tank and put inside an object it will render dark(er) than it has to be and no setting can fix it, switching to CPU solves that problem. That's the only flaw of V-Ray, also it doesn't support few things that CPU supports.
@@ExacoMvm V-ray was ans still a CPU-based renderer!
@@abdelhakkhalil7684 That's not true. Vray has both a CPU and a GPU render engine. I choose which one to use depending on the project.
Great video!
you've not touched on redshifts new RT render, massively improves lookdev, but sadly requires a 2000 series + Nvidia GPU.
Also, when I did some render tests myself a few months ago I was surprised to see that Corona was faster than vray. Maybe I didn't know how to properly optimize the render for vray, but coronas results impressed me. Arnold being Arnold was so behind on speed it's unbelievable. The GPU render on it I hate, cause it's super unstable and doesn't work half the time, you said you were happy with it but last time I tried it, it felt like it was made just to say that they have one and move on.
You should look into octane, while it's the least versatile from all of these during work it's simplicity is loved because it's the easiest to get good looking results in fast.
Autodesk acquired Arnold that's why, sorry mate, it used to be amazing!
After suffering with Arnolds long render times I switched to Vray 5 and have not looked back since. Interior car shot took 40 minutes with Arnold and still had artifacts on an rtx 2070. Vray had that done in a couple of minutes. Sorry dont remember the exact time but there is just no comparison. I personally did not notice any reason in quality to stick to Arnold. Disclaimer I am a generalist, hardsurface modeler and sculptor so not someone who generalizes in render engines like a shading artist or lightning artist. Take it with pinch of salt.
Thank you MographPlus
Thankfully I switched to Arnold Renderer back in 2020 and never looked back!
What's more convenient and easy to use? Redshift or Arnold?
Would like to see an updated course on Arnold for Maya.. Learned quite a bit from it but its quite old now and quite basic, a more in depth course will be an auto buy for me.
Arnold is quite buggy on MAYA 2023 edit: maybe its just Student Versions and not Studio version.
Love Vray and Arnold, both great engine, but Arnold makes more realistic results and they have amazing skin shader I've ever seen. Great video. Thanks!
I checked - everything is clean
thank you , still waiting your vray course on cinema 4d :)
It hurt 😢 me when v-ray won the over all but both are my true friends 😂 I love both. Thanks for sharing your experience ☺️
Tried them all and I totally agree with your opinion, great stuff!
what would you suggest for interior visualization?
@@Gromic2k Redshift & V-Ray if you're going for speed + GPU support, V-Ray and Corona are most popular for archviz. Corona, 3Delight or Arnold if you need more accuracy.
thank you too keep it compact and organized.
Thanks! I used V-Ray for a long time (3dsMax) but on my new project I'm doing Arnold. This largely has to do with the fact it comes with Max. I think that will have its advantages. I'm sad to hear about the rendering speed though, which I can see. I'm working to help fix that including doing GPU. A quick difference for me is I think may be I like Arnolds lights better than V-Ray. V-Ray material has specular and some things I like. A big one is the buffer. In production rendering it seems Arnold uses Max stripped down buffer but V-Ray has a lot to offer in its render panel.
Oh, also bleh on AOV's and a lot are missing. I've had to build some by hand using tutorials online. How it works and the name AOV is annoying - I think V-Ray nailed that and it worked very well for me and my needs. Also V-Ray comes with a great material library built in easy to understand and acess and use and Max Arnold I still don't know of anything outside of the short list in the Physical Material. I'm not sure how to access an Arnold Material Library inside Max.
Try Arnold RenderView in max it's much better than the default
i only use arnold because of the intel odin denoiser, its crazy what you can do with only 2 or 3 camera AA samples. no joke :) please try it. otherwise i would not be able to use arnold. i hope they keep it in
Great video, but when you say that speed is the most important aspect, i don't think it should be. In my opinion it doesn't matter if a engine is the fastest if it never achieves the result you expect.
For a skilled user speedy iterations is what matters. Ofc all 3 can provide good results in terms of image quality
Arnold has no competition in terms of quality when you pump settings, but iterations are so slow..and then a huge pain render out image sequences.
So the best word in this case is: compromise (vray)
@@SmokingMirror or balance
Agree, not to mention how relative is speed. Just about 3-4 years ago, everyone would have given their half arm to have the speed of any of these current engines with the modern HW, but for today we still want more. I would say any of these are plenty fast the difference you measure is not (that) significant compared to quality.
i think some people forget the time it takes to get your render looking good... one simple example is you take the sun and sky rig and get a camera in each render.. Render a sphere... in redshift it looks like shit...contrasty and harsh. you will have to go in and adjust everything... In vray it looks beautiful the gradients are smooth and gorgeous...
@@SmokingMirror
"Arnold has no competition in terms of quality"
ppl keep saying this but it's rubbish, the Emperor's New Clothes. Ppl at Pixar would be laughing the butts off at you too - while trying to string you up at the same time
yeah redshift is fast but..... the level is realism is much weaker than corona or arnold, especially when it comes to interior rendering
Nice video. I'd love to see a comparison between those engines staying only in C4D 🙂
Could you please create a course dedicated to Arnold for 3dsMax? The existing one is very old and hasn't been updated.
It really depends what you're using it for. For animation, V-ray followed by redshift is the most efficient,
But for me, I model objects in either still shots or very short animation for commercials, so I really prefer Arnold's functions and capabilities.
So Vray are better for animation than redshift?
@@GranzDesign efficiency. You need to study to read again
Hi. Will there be an update to your 'Comprehensive Introduction to Arnold for 3ds Max'. This was a great course, but there have been a lot of new features to Arnold in 3ds Max since I purchased this course in 2019.
I agree
Great video, thank you! I would really like to see an Octane vs Redshift version of this.
Thanks man for sharing, GREAT comparison!
Considering Arnold is free with cheap 3dsmax indie license. It is the best for now. But V-ray have alot more features and have good native support for Chaos Phoenix simulator.
thank you glen
Arnold is WAY easier to configure than Redshift.
Oh God is Redshift a nightmare to configure.
thank you so much!! for once I didn't lost my time ^^'
Thank you for the video. but..where is Octane?
The most complex rendering engine I've encountered is Arnold
Your words are biased for what you love, nothing more
And the easiest engine to encounter and the best is Corona
But the problem is that it is not compatible with many of the additions
If you find Arnold still complex enough, you just need to spend more time learning the renderer itself instead of pushing it. There has to be a reason why Arnold's the standard in the film industry. It's robust and stable for most of the stuff. Hair, VDB, particles etc. Arnold by far supports mo-graph modules the most in C4D too.
If you ever want to find jobs in the right industry, Arnold/Redshift will be your best choice to start with because they share similar shader settings and they fit in productions well. No animation studios would use Corona in their production pipelines. If you work freelance, I guess that's fine and its up to your preferences.
Corona renders super quick and I loved it since it came out. Corona has a strong dev team but sth happened since Chaos Group purchased it. Corona is only nice for Archi-Visualization and it's not production friendly for mograph stuff. It maybe easy to learn, but it won't help you becoming a better artist.
@@nickli608
"Arnold's the standard in the film industry"
Where on earth did you hear that rubbish - Vray and Renderman are at least as much "the standard" in feature films, Arnold doesn't have anything on them, and is slower than both.
@@schmoborama Are you a professional in the film industry? It is a renderer that's production-proven & ready to go. I'm not trying to deny Vray/Renderman are widely used, but saying "Arnold isn't the standard" and it was a "Rubbish"? Nah, I disagree.
I was arguing Arnold was in fact quite easy to set up in that comment. Yes, Arnold can be slow sometimes, but it's quite easy to learn and it gives you very reaslitic rendering results. Once you master Arnold, you can pretty share the same knowledge to other renderers. Just the matter of finding buttons.
@@nickli608
"Are you a professional in the film industry?"
Yes and I'm dealing with arnold's BS right now as we speak.
"It is a renderer that's production-proven & ready to go"
Sure ( but less ready to go than vray while requiring bigger render farms ), but that's not the same as 'the standard'. That phrase puts it above vray and renderman, which is false
I'm on my 5th show using arnold and the only reasons I can see for anyone preferring it is that Sony uses it for their movies ( which they did b/c they own their own version of it, which is b/c they want to avoid licensing fees as much as possible ; they even have their own image viewers, chat, and lighting tool, Katana ), and because lots of guys like you are saying "it's the best", for... some reason, and despite all the reasons that it's not.
@@schmoborama lol good luck man
1 - Renderman, 2 - Arnold, 3 - VRay
Thank you for this!!
Why yo compare VRAY 3? Try version 5.x.x. which works CPU & GPU. How much Maxon pay u for Redshift promo?
exactly!!! I was extremely annoyed about it . :D
WILL THERE BE A V-RAY COURSE FOR CINEMA 4D?
Thank you for this video :)
Update on V-ray 6 for Cinema 4D course?
thx so much im subbing broo
what about Nested Dielectrics in Vray? Its possible?
V-Ray and Arnold GPU version sucks vram very fast. Redshift on the other hand has very good memory optimization. It can handle much more geometry and displacement maps. Redshift is very much fine with 8 gig cards. For V-Ray GPU you must go for RTX 3090 to fit the same scene in vram.
Wow!
Mb new course to Arnold+3dsmax?
Looking forward to an Arnold, Octane, Redshift comparison. Nice work!
This was a lot better combo. Octane isnt used in any serious studio. You should have known that.
@@frederikalinden2128 Beeple, David Ariew, Cornelius Damnrich are using it. They're serious enough for me.
tbh lowkey gpu rendering is dying it's just not going anywhere regardless of how bad is the gpu market rn.
@@frederikalinden2128 which software is used for product rendering in studios then keyshot ?
@@cemgulpunk You proved their point, they're one-man shows, not a studio. Try again.
Do you have plans at all to do a V-ray5 course for c4D? I noticed you have one for 3DsMax, but the one you have for c4D I think is a much older version.
Will you be creating a Vray 5 course for C4D?
I really wanted to ask the same question! I wanted to install vray 5 for C4D but I could not find any lessons... :( I tried Arnold 7 but honestly the rendering time is crazy and the engine has many issues...
Arnold will catch up for sure on Speed!
thank you sir...
Please make a video comparing V-ray for *cinema 4d* and V-ray for *3ds max* . Thank you
if you want to know about the speed they are basically identical, the C4D version was a couple seconds faster in our tests
Max has obviously better or "richer" integration and there's many plugins for Max compatible with V-Ray, V-Ray also supports many native 3ds Max nodes which are pretty decent, has viewport preview similar to Blender's Eevee so that's about it.
But the V-Ray alone itself I think is about same in every 3D Package, unlike Octane for example which is slightly different in every package and is best in C4D ( I think it has more small features than in Max or Blender for example ). But overall the biggest differences of renderers in certain packages you will usually see in the material editor UI/UX as the renderer can't change it's functionality and also how the software handles the scene/materials and other properties, pretty much some workflow and UI/UX differences because of different "platform" but the rest will be same everywhere.
redshift crashes too much for me. I have a maxed out machine.. 192 gigs of ram 36 processors.. 2 x 3090s....2200 watt power supply.. I am searching for another renderer. Maybe they all crash too much but this was just wasting too much time.. I must restart my machine or restart redshift at least 5 times per day...sometimes it is not bad.. sometimes its worse... I have the latest drivers and all that crap... I know its the GPU workflow because things dont crash if the IPR is off...I think thats just part of the pipeline. GPUs crash... people forget about all of that...I would rather have slower render time but a clean workflow not full of crashes...
Arnold se utiliza en el cine, en el cine se renderiza con granjas de render. Tiene mucho sentido.
Hi, what is the minimum vram you need to enjoy the benefits of reshift. For somehow complex escenes (but not crazy) with animations.
I NEED VRAY FOR MAYA COURSE. WHERE CAN I GET??
Is the Vray for cinema 4d course updated ??
What is the main difference between vray and redshift??
V-Ray can be biased and unbiased, depends on setup
Thank you for stating what should be obvious, although, with Vray 5, It became clear that the direction of Vray is being mostly unbiased (using brute force for primary and secondary engine all the time)
@@abdelhakkhalil7684 That's not true. Vray 5's default settings is Light Cache for the secondary engine, not Brute Force. Also, the developers of Vray themselves discourage using Brute Force for the secondary engine unless absolutely necessary.
@@bgtubber I absolutely agree, I am not saying brute force all the way, but I am suggesting that the devs are clearly moving towards an unbiased approached. Btw, brute force for both primary and secondary engines doesn't always mean a better result.
@@abdelhakkhalil7684 Ok, I see now. Thanks for clarifying. :)
Renderman is the most used in the professional film industry.
You can run but you can not hide from Octane.
Yes he can. Octane is crashy since the beginning of their dev. No one use it in production....:D
@@fulanxi6434 let me guess Cycles is the best? 😁
Agreed but Arnold crashes a lot, sometimes just undoing while IPR on or chaining frame on timeline , redshift is like rock solid never crashes, haven't tried Vray
have you updated to lastest one
I also used to get a lot of crashes while viewing IPR and undoing
But in the lastest version I think they fixed it
Doesn't crashes anymore for me
@@thefloydian1876 thank for the info will update and try
Recently, my most vulnerable renderer is redshift.
Never had a single crash using Arnold could be the other 100 plug-in you've installed. 😆
@@itsthatYEStoogoodguy Yes, the CPU rendering device must be stable than the GPU renderer
i didn't test redshift but octane seems much much faster than Arnold and v-ray
you didn't mention or compare octane in your video why ?
He said why in the video.
If you think Arnold is "realistic," let me take an excerpt from their manual: "'Hard' caustics from small but bright light sources (e.g., a spot light through a cognac glass) are not currently possible.
Arnold uses simple, uni-directional path tracing. Rays start at the camera, not at the lights. Arnold does not use bi-directional path tracing (nor any other bi-directional technique, such as photon mapping, which fires rays from the lights). When using standard lights, like point lights and spot lights, which are idealized lights with zero area, i.e. point lights, it is simply impossible for Arnold's GI/reflection/refraction rays to hit the lights. Therefore, there are no caustics.
Uni-directional path tracing is so 2015...
so true
Which render engine is best for product rendering
The quality of Engine depends only on user. Nice video
No, just no
what about noise, the one of the most important thing.
Which render engine will be around in 5 years?
Unreal
@@cemgulpunk fact
@@kuunami no
The same engines that have been around for 20 years? Lol
Redshift is becoming more unstable after Maxon takeover, donno what happened.
The world get unstable after the bank take the control of everything.....
Great video! I had no idea Redshift is so much faster.
Arnold is faster as CPU
BUBUT BUT Octane Renderer is a Third Party NOT Industry standard software.
I have try all this renders engine, but for me the only great one is Arnold.....
Can anyone plz tell me...why is redshift faster than vray ??
I like ART render. It build in in 3dsmax. Wery simple. Only maybe missing glow effect. But ARnold not support wery bright emmisive materials while ART perfectly support. So this is big advantage for ART. But ART maybe slowest renderer. It cpu based. I have 5900x And rtx 3060 and seems with GPU ARnold enders faster with about same quality. Power cunsumps about same. About 240 W from socket whole PC consumps while rendering. Vray and Redshift not tested. Big inprovement is in ARNOLD while in Arnold 7 addaded optix denoiser by defoult. If no subsfase scatering, then it wery good denoising, I say. Arold have some eerrors. ART is more stable less issues I get rendering with art. Arnold have some isues. If you have many core cpu, then ART is not bad renderer.
Who need fast when you need quality? Only CPU renders!
blender cycles?
how much faster?
I'm broke. So, I'll be using the free one.
Octane?
... is the only best here.
hi! I live in africa. I want buy your online cours.
Renderman? 👀
What about Cycles X?
cycles x may win with speed, but for quality and materials vray and arnold are at top, and you can use cycles only in blender, but for vray and arnold, both supports lot of softwares, it's easier to switch between diff softwares.
arnold is used in lot of movies, it's lot slower, but quality it's produces is amazing
i use vray, it's lot faster than arnold and little slower than cyclesx, it's used in some movies, but arnold is at top
cycles is faster but it's only limited to blender, and quality it's produces doesn't match other engines, you will get cool results with it, but volumatrics, particles, fx are better in arnold.
unreal engine path tracing,?
temporal optix denoiser just been added to blender cycles 3.1 alpha, expect it to other optix denoisers like arnold and redshift in the following months
Arnold gives the best quality result, that's the most important thing to me personally. V-ray and Redshift is better for speed, which is necessary for mass production, specially animation.
Balderdash. Can you wait 24hrs for just one frame of the best render? B/c that's what it would take arnold to render similar settings to vray - I can barely afford to use a depth of 1 indirect diff or spec in arnold, and frequently have to use ZERO. While I can use *25* in Vray.
@@schmoborama 24 hours is an exaggeration, but yeah, if I care about an artwork, I'll wait more than that.
@@ultravioletron
Will you wait that much longer for the same result?
Plus put up with more bugs, crashes and features that don't work?
@@schmoborama I've been using Arnold for a while now, it's not that bad as you're describing. I use vray when I'm in a rush. V-ray has this unatural feel to it that I'm not a big fan of.
@@ultravioletron
Vray's been used on Marvel movies for years, and you're claiming Arnold is better than that, and better than Renderman too - ? And Arnold is slower than both of them.
Corona or Fstorm.
Must not be a Redshift for max user. Rs material in max is the best material UI/UX wise I've seen! I love it.
Arnold is faster than vray when im using GPU render.
karma?
where is the corona ?
Stopped the video when you excluded Cycles X and said "Corona" is better than Cycles X lmao
Is there any ways to get redshift or octane for free?
It’s render an
Blender Fan Boy Be Like : Cycles is Much Better
and it's freee LOL
@@cemgulpunk wkwkwkwkwk
Hehehehehe, blender is nice... I love Cinema
Cycles is not bad renderer. He is also sometime faster than Redshift, at least for me. He have many fails... just like any other renderer. He is good enough for mid range jobs, some people even work for Mercedes or Dassault. So, yeah, he is enough good, especially for this 'price'... Nothing more, nothing less.
Fstorm?
Are you kidding?
@@divasoft did you used it?
Corona:
cycles is just so bad?hahaha
Fstorm best Render Engine in 2022!!!
To be honest Arnold is by far the worst of all I tried (Corona, V-Ray, Arnold, Redshift). The most complicated UI and when I compared all the renders the worst result was from Arnold. Not to mention it is constantly crashing and so buggy (materials not always visible in the viewport despite being connected to both Beauty and Viewport), denoiser is awful, shaders are far from intuitive and more and more! The most realistic (despite it is pure to personal taste) is Redshift followed by Corona then V-Ray (CPU) and last V-Ray (GPU). So I noticed you are working mostly with Arnold as you also sell your course in Mograph it is obvious why you chose Arnold... but the real truth is that Arnold is not even in the top 3!
Tabloids 😂
what a bs title.
Completely ignoring Cycles X in Blender... come on, in terms of image quality Cycles is way better than Vray and especially better than Redshift. Arnold is super slow and pure time waster at the moment. That makes Cycles X the best compromise between quality (unbiased path tracer) and speed.
lmao, just no..
@@Mycelium just yes, I've been working with arnold and It struggles so much with their times, cycles X is incredibly faster and It can achieve the same results with little touches