Since so many of you were confused about the title: Octane is known to have this very specific, realistic look to it out of the box - on Instagram you're going to find a lot of renders that have this dramatic/moody/hyperrealistic vibe to it. This tutorial was made to replicate that look - by creating an interesting lighting setup and color-grading in post you can come really far with Cycles alone. I should've explained that first in the intro, so I understand the confusion. Sorry for that. The term "cinematic lighting" is just very overused, hence why I chose something we can all relate to.
Title is a bit misleading... There's nothing that replicates octane's rendering here. Basically just a cycles lighting tutorial then some color tweaks + glow in 3rd party software (btw you can do most of that in the compositor in blender). It is a very decent intro to lighting + rendering in cycles, but you should just call it that.
Sorry for the confusion. I totally get that, this was just to demonstrate how far you can go with vanilla Cycles and just some post-processing, basically creating a dramatic/cinematic lighting setup.
you didn't explain exactly whats the difference between cycles and octane and therefore you miss the entire point of the title here, as, why would i want cycles look like octane? why does octane looks the way it does? does it make it any difference? is it just a stylistic choice or does it have some photorealistic grounds? maybe actually trying both engines to make a more founded argument based on observations.
Apologies for the confusion. Octane is known to have this very specific, realistic look to it out of the box - on Instagram you're going to find a lot of renders that have this dramatic/moody vibe to it. This tutorial was made to replicate these types of styles. I should've explained that first in the intro, so I understand why you were a bit confused.
Octane doesn't really have any look, just like when you watch a movie with CG or CG animation you can't tell what renderer was used to make that. Any renderer can achieve photorealism in the year 2024; Octane, Redshift, Cycles, Arnold, Vray, Renderman, Corona etc. Octane isn't the only one that does photorealism lol and If you wanna use Octane then just use it, it has a free version for Blender OR just learn how to comp and grade and you can have any desired look. That's the whole point of cg and working with linear color space that you have a lot of overhead to tweak your image with different passes in comp and achieve any look you want if you know how to do it. Don't just be limited to color grading like you'd do with real footages, real footages don't have render passes, CG renders do.
Why save as png? EXR contains much more light and color information and with AWAA/B compression it is even smaller in size than PNG. And you have the advantage of a linear workflow and can use it better for compositing.
I know. But this topic in itself deserves its own video since it requires unnecessary overhead to get it configured correctly (color space, HDR, ACES). This was more of a small introduction to lighting possibilities with Cycles alone and the for end result it would not have made much of a difference, just more work. (Grüße aus Stuttgart)
I have actually never used Octane, but I can consider making a basic "getting started" video. Nonetheless, you can expect more episodes around lighting and scene composition like this one. ✌
Please, don't try to pirate software. The free version is already more than enough for most and if your needs ever exceed that, you can afford to pay for it ;)
The title in the concept of the video is incredibly misleading. I appreciate you, including color grading, but please be more clear. This could potentially be called an “Octane look”, but nothing more. I’m pretty sure there’s more to obtain color than just a simple color grading.
Sorry for the confusion. I totally get that, this was just to demonstrate how far you can go with vanilla Cycles and just some post-processing, basically creating a dramatic/cinematic lighting setup.
This is not how constructive criticism works. 716 people found this guide incredibly helpful. If you are confused, I'd advise reading the pinned comment.
@@bluradsThat is my opinion and noticed the same opinion on many others before commenting. Do you want constructive criticism? : Do not make videos with misleading titles so you do not hurt viewers retention, just be clear about what you explain in the video, it is as simple as that. People view a video and expect to see what is described in the video or see in the image.
Thank you for the comment. This video was aimed at people who are just starting out with Blender and don't want to learn a whole new different renderer.
You have more creative freedom in DR, since it's industry standard for color grading workflows. But you could totally do it in Blender as well, but I find the compositor to be extremely slow and unresponsive once you start adding multiple effect nodes.
@@apzzpa I am saying, BEFORE doing a final render, tweaking the changes one would have wanted to edit after. Instead of Blendering first the going to Photoshop.
@@blurads yea I got your point. Also, cycles is (and is becoming) way much efficient for photorealistic renders. Btw you would need postprocessing also rendering directly with octane depending on your job
I love this! I have been doing the same thing for a long time now. I haven’t used glow yet, which I will try next time. Depending on the scene I also like to add a little amount of Gaussian blur and film grain to make it seem more natural. Oh what’s also a neat trick is adding a secondary red glow to your halation, to get those red outlines on your highlights.
Thank you for sharing. This is exactly what I do in the next episode, Gaussian Blur + Secondary Glow. But I think you can turn up the redness in the Halation node itself as well.
It's a completely different workflow though. With Cycles alone you can achieve some pretty good results out of the box, so not sure if it's worth learning an entirely different system.
@@blurads I'm new to octane. I heard its faster and better than cycles. That's why... My area of interest is product visualization. Whether its done in cycles or octane.
Except it’s a whole different version of Blender so it’s not compatible with most other plugins, especially niche ones. The settings and workflow are also entirely different so it’s not beginner friendly in the slightest. Having said that, the lighting and materials are absolutely so much better than Cycles but until it’s a more seamless integration with Blender, it’s not worth it.
It's not faster. The integration is ok but you still get massive loading times compared to Cycles when scenes get large, which also has persistent data. Furthermore Octane does not have a look to it, it's an unbiased pathtracer as is cycles. It does however have LUTs/Bloom but said effects are better done in post. Stick with Cycles and venture into Octane if you REALLY need a feature you can't find in Cycles.
@@zx3d979I've seen comparison pics of octane Vs cycles and octane usually trumped it in realistic reflections and lighting. U still recommend to use cycles?
I think you misunderstood his coment, he is complimentog the tutorial as a lighting tutorial, so broadly aplyable that its more than just a octane lookalike tutorial
Since so many of you were confused about the title:
Octane is known to have this very specific, realistic look to it out of the box - on Instagram you're going to find a lot of renders that have this dramatic/moody/hyperrealistic vibe to it.
This tutorial was made to replicate that look - by creating an interesting lighting setup and color-grading in post you can come really far with Cycles alone.
I should've explained that first in the intro, so I understand the confusion. Sorry for that.
The term "cinematic lighting" is just very overused, hence why I chose something we can all relate to.
Title is a bit misleading... There's nothing that replicates octane's rendering here. Basically just a cycles lighting tutorial then some color tweaks + glow in 3rd party software (btw you can do most of that in the compositor in blender).
It is a very decent intro to lighting + rendering in cycles, but you should just call it that.
Sorry for the confusion. I totally get that, this was just to demonstrate how far you can go with vanilla Cycles and just some post-processing, basically creating a dramatic/cinematic lighting setup.
you didn't explain exactly whats the difference between cycles and octane and therefore you miss the entire point of the title here, as, why would i want cycles look like octane? why does octane looks the way it does? does it make it any difference? is it just a stylistic choice or does it have some photorealistic grounds? maybe actually trying both engines to make a more founded argument based on observations.
Apologies for the confusion.
Octane is known to have this very specific, realistic look to it out of the box - on Instagram you're going to find a lot of renders that have this dramatic/moody vibe to it. This tutorial was made to replicate these types of styles. I should've explained that first in the intro, so I understand why you were a bit confused.
Step 1 - use Blender Octane.
This is for those who want to use Cycles, otherwise what's the point. Read the pinned comment.
Octane doesn't really have any look, just like when you watch a movie with CG or CG animation you can't tell what renderer was used to make that. Any renderer can achieve photorealism in the year 2024; Octane, Redshift, Cycles, Arnold, Vray, Renderman, Corona etc. Octane isn't the only one that does photorealism lol and If you wanna use Octane then just use it, it has a free version for Blender OR just learn how to comp and grade and you can have any desired look. That's the whole point of cg and working with linear color space that you have a lot of overhead to tweak your image with different passes in comp and achieve any look you want if you know how to do it. Don't just be limited to color grading like you'd do with real footages, real footages don't have render passes, CG renders do.
I get your point, the pinned comment goes into more detail
lighting a scene with cycles to look like octane renders on Instagram does not make something look like a different render bro. 😂
463 people said otherwise 🤷
Why save as png? EXR contains much more light and color information and with AWAA/B compression it is even smaller in size than PNG.
And you have the advantage of a linear workflow and can use it better for compositing.
I know. But this topic in itself deserves its own video since it requires unnecessary overhead to get it configured correctly (color space, HDR, ACES). This was more of a small introduction to lighting possibilities with Cycles alone and the for end result it would not have made much of a difference, just more work.
(Grüße aus Stuttgart)
amazing and so amazing you included the color grading ✨🙌 10/10 tutorial, can’t wait for more 🙏
Thank you so much. I always do the complete package :)
Cool! In case u use octane, could do a summary video? "Why, where, what, how using blender octane ?"
I have actually never used Octane, but I can consider making a basic "getting started" video. Nonetheless, you can expect more episodes around lighting and scene composition like this one. ✌
@@blurads ok, "how to get davinci pro version for free tutorial" would be nice;)
Please, don't try to pirate software. The free version is already more than enough for most and if your needs ever exceed that, you can afford to pay for it ;)
@@blurads no worries bro ;) 100% true, gl on ur YT journey!
@@bUildYT Thanks a lot!
The title in the concept of the video is incredibly misleading. I appreciate you, including color grading, but please be more clear. This could potentially be called an “Octane look”, but nothing more. I’m pretty sure there’s more to obtain color than just a simple color grading.
Sorry for the confusion. I totally get that, this was just to demonstrate how far you can go with vanilla Cycles and just some post-processing, basically creating a dramatic/cinematic lighting setup.
now this is a level of tutorial that u can understand right after doing the donut tutorial. not too simple not too complex.
That's the exact thing I'm targeting. Doing more in that style.
Stop making people lose time with misleading titles
This is not how constructive criticism works. 716 people found this guide incredibly helpful. If you are confused, I'd advise reading the pinned comment.
@@bluradsThat is my opinion and noticed the same opinion on many others before commenting.
Do you want constructive criticism? :
Do not make videos with misleading titles so you do not hurt viewers retention, just be clear about what you explain in the video, it is as simple as that.
People view a video and expect to see what is described in the video or see in the image.
@@bluradsAnd to clarify, I did not say the video is bad, I said the title is misleading which is different
nice tutorial, but octane is free tho, i mean, why try to imitate octane with cycles when you can do it for free?
Thank you for the comment. This video was aimed at people who are just starting out with Blender and don't want to learn a whole new different renderer.
why not do the color grading and adjustments in Blender directly ? Just curious
You have more creative freedom in DR, since it's industry standard for color grading workflows. But you could totally do it in Blender as well, but I find the compositor to be extremely slow and unresponsive once you start adding multiple effect nodes.
@@blurads thanks for sharing !
I honestly dislike Post-pro...
You don't have to color grade it. It's a nice touch at the end.
@simbarashekunedzimwe1372 Every amazing piece of artwork you have seen would have used post-pro
@@apzzpa can't we do it pre-render by using a sample render or viewport compositor?
@@simbarashekunedzimwe1372 compositing is post processing. Blender compositor is no different than photoshop, davinci or nuke in what it does.
@@apzzpa I am saying, BEFORE doing a final render, tweaking the changes one would have wanted to edit after. Instead of Blendering first the going to Photoshop.
Got ideas for a next video? Leave it down below. 👇
in next video do this in blender
@@tomiramone Thanks, compositor is on the list
or just use octane.
This is for folks who want to use Cycles. Read the pinned comment.
Or... just use octane render engine 🤷 it is free for blender
You can. This is more aimed at people who are familiar with the default Blender workflow and don't want to learn a whole different render engine.
@@blurads yea I got your point. Also, cycles is (and is becoming) way much efficient for photorealistic renders. Btw you would need postprocessing also rendering directly with octane depending on your job
@@zizzonedibattipaglia6247 True! You get the bloom basically for free though
seee this is what a quality content looks like
Expect more soon™
Good vid, still have some room to improve tho.
Go ahead, I'm open for feedback
I love this! I have been doing the same thing for a long time now. I haven’t used glow yet, which I will try next time.
Depending on the scene I also like to add a little amount of Gaussian blur and film grain to make it seem more natural.
Oh what’s also a neat trick is adding a secondary red glow to your halation, to get those red outlines on your highlights.
Thank you for sharing.
This is exactly what I do in the next episode, Gaussian Blur + Secondary Glow. But I think you can turn up the redness in the Halation node itself as well.
Amazing Video !
Cant wait for what more you got
More coming soon
Octane for Blender is free. The only limitation is you can use only one GPU and there is no ORBX (Octane) file export.
It's a completely different workflow though. With Cycles alone you can achieve some pretty good results out of the box, so not sure if it's worth learning an entirely different system.
Let's gooo
Glad you liked it!
It's a nice video 🙌🏼
Thank you for checking it out!
Amazing video❤
Thanks for watching!
Octane is free. Make tutorials on octane blender. Tutorials on octane blender are rare on youtube.
Do you prefer using Octane over Cycles in Blender? If so, could you please elaborate?
@@blurads I'm new to octane. I heard its faster and better than cycles. That's why... My area of interest is product visualization. Whether its done in cycles or octane.
Except it’s a whole different version of Blender so it’s not compatible with most other plugins, especially niche ones. The settings and workflow are also entirely different so it’s not beginner friendly in the slightest. Having said that, the lighting and materials are absolutely so much better than Cycles but until it’s a more seamless integration with Blender, it’s not worth it.
It's not faster. The integration is ok but you still get massive loading times compared to Cycles when scenes get large, which also has persistent data. Furthermore Octane does not have a look to it, it's an unbiased pathtracer as is cycles. It does however have LUTs/Bloom but said effects are better done in post. Stick with Cycles and venture into Octane if you REALLY need a feature you can't find in Cycles.
@@zx3d979I've seen comparison pics of octane Vs cycles and octane usually trumped it in realistic reflections and lighting. U still recommend to use cycles?
This is a lighting tutorial for cycles bro. This has nothing to do with Octane 😂
Read the title again
I think you misunderstood his coment, he is complimentog the tutorial as a lighting tutorial, so broadly aplyable that its more than just a octane lookalike tutorial
To be fair I get the guy, you can literally use octane inside blender, cycles is cycles, not that it's so much worse as a render engine
I understand the confusion, sorry for that. The pinned comment goes into more detail.
@@blurads ok you won me over with that comment. Thank you brother. Looks great ❤️
I really like that you explained everything and it didnt take a long time, hope to see more soon! 💯
That's the goal. I'm honestly bored with all the tutorials taking ages to get to the point!