Cycles is great, but after 20 years of Lightwave I REALLY miss motion blur of lights. And motion blur of textures. And motion blur of animated UVs. Basically, Blender only MBs geometry and the camera, and that's it. Sigh.
Octane definitely has its areas where it outperforms cycles, but in terms of rendering quality of anything you mentioned here is just a question of working with light path nodes and postprocessing, purely stylistic choices. Not to mention cycles X is way faster than octane for same results (without a doubt in most cases) and all those examples you showed were rendered in old cycles. Octane is fine but it's viability is actually for very specific cases
@@danibiyarslanov There are some specific renders that octane calculates a bit better and more accurately, like some refractive materials and sometimes metals... used to be fabric but it's not anymore, and I think volumes have better performance in octane. But IMHO it's mostly not worth it and you can get the desired effect by playing with light path nodes in blender and the time you spend will be saved on render times anyway so...
@@danibiyarslanovI've been an octane user for 3 years and just recently switched to cycles. To be honest, lighting is almost the same, volume in Octane though it sucks in terms of look (god rays is pretty much almost impossible) and render times. Plus, you can't even mix two displacement materials. The only con I find in cycles is that the postfx real-time composer is still not quite the same as the final render but seems like they're fixing that in 4.2 or you could also just use an addon.
The problem is not Cycles, it's how ridiculously fast the Vram limit caps out. You can't make a whole scene in Blender, especially if you go for a realistic style
This👆. There's no reason for cycles to load full textures into memory then apply Mip mapping. Load only the necessary resolution mip mapped textures into memory to prevent massive GPU VRAM overhead. Maya/Arnold solved this ages ago, and it would further democratize rendering on low vram cards and potentially reduce render time significantly. Memsaver plugin works ok, but if you're working with renders on a farm, moving the camera around, or sharing scenes with other artists it's too much of a hassle to use.
Cycles is not viable for production unless you have a lot of resources and help. Even then, there are just certain problems it has that they haven't fixed for years. A critically bad bug in Cycles, for instance, is that any geometry in the depth pass with an alpha material will be pure noise (regardless of samples). This makes using the depth channel in a scene with trees/plants for instance, really difficult if not impossible. The developers have set this as a "low priority" bug and have not fixed it for years now. Another issue is the lack of temporal denoising. (and no, the optix temporal denoiser doesn't count, there's no UI and it produces useless results). They actually took OUT the old temporal denoiser and then never replaced it. This means to render flicker-free animation you have to use a huge sample count depending on the scene, which means you need a render farm for production-quality animation renders. Again, the developers don't seem to see this as a priority. It's insane to me. This kind of thing would never pass quality control in a third party renderer, especially for literal years. Cycles is great for stills, crap for animation.
Are you adjusting the sample count or the noise threshhold? In cycles you shouldn't lower the sample count. It gets uneven noise results. Especially in animation this can matter, when flickering in low lit parts of the image or transmissive materials. Try asjustung the noise threshhold instead. It gets more even results and is the way the devs recommend to use cycles now. When you lower the sample count cycles will stop after 128 samples for example. Some parts of the image are clean now, some are not. Cycles looks where noise is and keeps sampling there. It's an adaptive sampler. If you keep 4096 samples, but adjust the noise threshhold which is when cycles will stop sampling after a certain noise is met, it gets results that are far more even and flickering is much less.
I suppose it's like this because the Blender developers work on issues they're interested in but developers for third party renderers work on the stuff that will provide a better user experience for the customer.
No true micro-polygon displacement is the main thing holding cycles back. (The long abandoned "experimental" adaptive-subd isn't good enough.) Pbr texture packs, they work fine in other renderers. But if you want all the detail in cycles? Get stacking those modifiers! Displacement with it's weird texture interface, or maybe throwing enough geometry nodes at the problem will do it. Manually subdivide the mesh in key areas why not. But either way, you're gonna need a lot of effort to get materials looking half as good as the competition!
Octane is a spectral render. This only make it very superior to cycles. But many don't use the spectral in any capacity. What I really miss of octane is the capacity for you change color spaces on the fly. The octane input the parameters and render at spectral under the hood. Then output in what colorspace you want. I used TCAMv2 a lot with octane. Miss it. But in any way cycles is bad. I like, and make better results, than on V-Ray.
Cycles is still fairly slow with high learning curve compared to other engines. The results are good though if you know where everything is placed as per your need and idea. It would be great if cycles is developed more in terms of ease of use with comparable render speeds on GPU and CPU both
My curiosity it's if somemeone use renderman in blender. Given that blender is free (an powerful), is renderman (commercial and complicated) used in small production with blender? Thanks
Cycles have some limitations for big production for me, the main ones are: -Depth pass doesn’t handle well transparent objects with alpha channel -It doesn’t include deep datas for deep Compositing These two are very important for me but it’s looks like it’s not a priority for the developers 🤦♂️ until then, still love me some Renderman or Arnold for big VFX or animation. But I’ll wait till they include all this in Cycles because I like what Blender is becoming on each new versions. Just think about deep data exr for a future release and I quit Autodesk for good 😅
Cycles is awsome. Thanks to the Blender Team! Many people here posting crap, while having no idea about professional 3d productions. This channel is only making pr with strange claims.
I like that this channel advertises things that are related to the channel content, hate watching video game channels and getting their personal ads for Dollar Shave Club etc
Cycle needs to be Motor cycle. I wonder corona renderer finish the rendering in 10 minutes with accurate GI and blender give same result in 30 minutes. The optimization behind the commercial renderer is great.
but lumen is not near close to cycles in quality speaking, you have to use pathtracing to get similar results, and its not to much faster to render than cycles... and in addition to that animation is much more limited and difficult inside unreal
he talked about the historical context of cycles, what makes it "good enough" and why some people might prefer other engine, in a nicely presented video, that looks a lot for "nothing" in my opinion
The Blender render engines are just buggy bitches I render everything with Cinema 4D R.21 when I go to sleep I turn it on and it won't crash at all.never
I get it, but I really don't want to pay $20 a month for octane. Cycles gives me everything I need for my projects (personal and professional). No hate for Octane, but I just don't need it.
Cycles is just not good enough. Base Speed (no denoiser), Level of control (exposed features), CPU is inferior to the point you will only choose GPU, although in a lot of cases CPU is the right choice, The lack of Buckets also is a shame for some cases, Tone Mapping - Why not ACES, why do we need AGX? Render Passes (as you mentioned), and these are just on the top of my head. Cycles is cool for personal projects, for production it is very lacking.
I wont support any company that switches to subscription to use. Octane has done this. You cant buy and own it outright anymore so now they will keep making money off you on a monthly basis until you've spent far more than the software would cost. Keep being happy paying to own nothing. I wont.
Explore RenderHub's diverse 3D assets here► www.renderhub.com
For the 90% of people who are not in the film industry, Cycles is more than enough.
so true!!!
Cycles is great, but after 20 years of Lightwave I REALLY miss motion blur of lights. And motion blur of textures. And motion blur of animated UVs. Basically, Blender only MBs geometry and the camera, and that's it. Sigh.
@@MrDaveWhitney^this!
Motion blur can easily be added in post with after effects. @@MrDaveWhitney
@@MrDaveWhitney true. Motion Blur in in Blender ain`t perfect.
I'm not going to complain it's free and wonderful, thank you Blender for existing
or pay 4-digits for something that's just a *BIT* better, right? 😅
Materials matter 10 times more than the render engine.
Absolutely said, how render engine sample textures according to the importance and distance from camera significantly impact render speed.
ABSOLUTELY
Thanks a lot for including my artworks at 1:13 and 1:14.
Octane definitely has its areas where it outperforms cycles, but in terms of rendering quality of anything you mentioned here is just a question of working with light path nodes and postprocessing, purely stylistic choices.
Not to mention cycles X is way faster than octane for same results (without a doubt in most cases) and all those examples you showed were rendered in old cycles.
Octane is fine but it's viability is actually for very specific cases
when is it better to use octane over cycles?
@@danibiyarslanov There are some specific renders that octane calculates a bit better and more accurately, like some refractive materials and sometimes metals... used to be fabric but it's not anymore, and I think volumes have better performance in octane.
But IMHO it's mostly not worth it and you can get the desired effect by playing with light path nodes in blender and the time you spend will be saved on render times anyway so...
@@danibiyarslanovI've been an octane user for 3 years and just recently switched to cycles. To be honest, lighting is almost the same, volume in Octane though it sucks in terms of look (god rays is pretty much almost impossible) and render times. Plus, you can't even mix two displacement materials. The only con I find in cycles is that the postfx real-time composer is still not quite the same as the final render but seems like they're fixing that in 4.2 or you could also just use an addon.
@@berry3656 what adding fixes that real-time compositor issue tho? I've been trying to find a way to fix that issue for years
@@tfk884 we gotta wait for the 4.2 update it's prob still gonna be like 80-90% accurate since they said "mostly" it will be accurate
The problem is not Cycles, it's how ridiculously fast the Vram limit caps out. You can't make a whole scene in Blender, especially if you go for a realistic style
try out memsaver addon
This👆. There's no reason for cycles to load full textures into memory then apply Mip mapping. Load only the necessary resolution mip mapped textures into memory to prevent massive GPU VRAM overhead. Maya/Arnold solved this ages ago, and it would further democratize rendering on low vram cards and potentially reduce render time significantly. Memsaver plugin works ok, but if you're working with renders on a farm, moving the camera around, or sharing scenes with other artists it's too much of a hassle to use.
Use Cuda instead of optix, Cuda has out of core features
@@zedeon6299 Sure but cuda is slower, out of core is extremely slow - just by nature of out of what out of core is.
@@chrisb3685 it's better than not being able to render anything
Cycles is not viable for production unless you have a lot of resources and help. Even then, there are just certain problems it has that they haven't fixed for years. A critically bad bug in Cycles, for instance, is that any geometry in the depth pass with an alpha material will be pure noise (regardless of samples). This makes using the depth channel in a scene with trees/plants for instance, really difficult if not impossible. The developers have set this as a "low priority" bug and have not fixed it for years now.
Another issue is the lack of temporal denoising. (and no, the optix temporal denoiser doesn't count, there's no UI and it produces useless results). They actually took OUT the old temporal denoiser and then never replaced it. This means to render flicker-free animation you have to use a huge sample count depending on the scene, which means you need a render farm for production-quality animation renders. Again, the developers don't seem to see this as a priority. It's insane to me. This kind of thing would never pass quality control in a third party renderer, especially for literal years. Cycles is great for stills, crap for animation.
Ya I more than agree on your last point (Cycles is great for stills, crap for animation)
Are you adjusting the sample count or the noise threshhold?
In cycles you shouldn't lower the sample count. It gets uneven noise results. Especially in animation this can matter, when flickering in low lit parts of the image or transmissive materials.
Try asjustung the noise threshhold instead. It gets more even results and is the way the devs recommend to use cycles now.
When you lower the sample count cycles will stop after 128 samples for example. Some parts of the image are clean now, some are not. Cycles looks where noise is and keeps sampling there. It's an adaptive sampler.
If you keep 4096 samples, but adjust the noise threshhold which is when cycles will stop sampling after a certain noise is met, it gets results that are far more even and flickering is much less.
@@petritzky I have used high sample count and low noise threshold. these settings work differently as per setup.
I suppose it's like this because the Blender developers work on issues they're interested in but developers for third party renderers work on the stuff that will provide a better user experience for the customer.
No true micro-polygon displacement is the main thing holding cycles back. (The long abandoned "experimental" adaptive-subd isn't good enough.)
Pbr texture packs, they work fine in other renderers. But if you want all the detail in cycles? Get stacking those modifiers! Displacement with it's weird texture interface, or maybe throwing enough geometry nodes at the problem will do it. Manually subdivide the mesh in key areas why not. But either way, you're gonna need a lot of effort to get materials looking half as good as the competition!
Octane is a spectral render. This only make it very superior to cycles.
But many don't use the spectral in any capacity.
What I really miss of octane is the capacity for you change color spaces on the fly.
The octane input the parameters and render at spectral under the hood. Then output in what colorspace you want.
I used TCAMv2 a lot with octane. Miss it.
But in any way cycles is bad. I like, and make better results, than on V-Ray.
Cycles is still fairly slow with high learning curve compared to other engines. The results are good though if you know where everything is placed as per your need and idea. It would be great if cycles is developed more in terms of ease of use with comparable render speeds on GPU and CPU both
Cycles - "high learning curve" * laughs in octane's nodes *
Thank you for this movie about cycles i love it.
This was the exact video i was looking for. Great job!
My curiosity it's if somemeone use renderman in blender.
Given that blender is free (an powerful), is renderman (commercial and complicated) used in small production with blender? Thanks
Cycles have some limitations for big production for me, the main ones are:
-Depth pass doesn’t handle well transparent objects with alpha channel
-It doesn’t include deep datas for deep Compositing
These two are very important for me but it’s looks like it’s not a priority for the developers 🤦♂️ until then, still love me some Renderman or Arnold for big VFX or animation.
But I’ll wait till they include all this in Cycles because I like what Blender is becoming on each new versions. Just think about deep data exr for a future release and I quit Autodesk for good 😅
Truer words were never written... great comments.
Blender with D5 is best for archviz.
Cycles is awsome. Thanks to the Blender Team! Many people here posting crap, while having no idea about professional 3d productions. This channel is only making pr with strange claims.
I like that this channel advertises things that are related to the channel content, hate watching video game channels and getting their personal ads for Dollar Shave Club etc
The answer is no! Cycles is amazing for professional works, also for huge scenes, for everything!
LOL
Cycle needs to be Motor cycle. I wonder corona renderer finish the rendering in 10 minutes with accurate GI and blender give same result in 30 minutes. The optimization behind the commercial renderer is great.
Need to fuse eevee with cycle using modern GPU techs.
Eevee will never look as good as Cycles. I use Octane because it looks better than most renders.
I ❤ Octane and Blender
That's kind of the idea with Eevee Next, that is meant to be a raytracing powered realtime render engine, just like d5 and unreal engine with lumen.
as all of the rest of blender, cycles is a learning toy
Switched to unreal engine,
I love your channels ❤
"Cylces"
luxcore is much more powerful than d5 renderer in archviz
Cycles is too limited :/
MORE PEOPLE ARE SWITCHING TO UNREAL ENGINE BECAUSE CYCLES IS JUST TOO SLOW AND LIMITING.
I wish eevee next was as good as Lumen
How is Cycles limitint compared to unreal Lumen.
@@Lloyd_2001 SPEEEED
@@Lloyd_2001 I love Cycles but it's teh truth
but lumen is not near close to cycles in quality speaking, you have to use pathtracing to get similar results, and its not to much faster to render than cycles... and in addition to that animation is much more limited and difficult inside unreal
Yes, cylces pretty slow and unstable in making "box" photography
Hi sir iam from India iam studying animation degree will Ai effect on my studies and jobs please clarify sir
Every software has users who use other engines. The premise of this video seems goofy.
Maybe AI viewport is the door to future .
This sounds like crap. Cycles is awesome and does really good work with proper knowledge and gpu.
I don't know about Cylces but Cycles not good enough
this vid said a whole lot of nothing
he talked about the historical context of cycles, what makes it "good enough" and why some people might prefer other engine, in a nicely presented video, that looks a lot for "nothing" in my opinion
The Blender render engines are just buggy bitches I render everything with Cinema 4D R.21 when I go to sleep I turn it on and it won't crash at all.never
I get it, but I really don't want to pay $20 a month for octane. Cycles gives me everything I need for my projects (personal and professional). No hate for Octane, but I just don't need it.
Cycles is just not good enough. Base Speed (no denoiser), Level of control (exposed features), CPU is inferior to the point you will only choose GPU, although in a lot of cases CPU is the right choice, The lack of Buckets also is a shame for some cases, Tone Mapping - Why not ACES, why do we need AGX? Render Passes (as you mentioned), and these are just on the top of my head. Cycles is cool for personal projects, for production it is very lacking.
I find all my cycles renders look the "same"
Stop rendering deafault scene with deafault settings over and over again XD
I wont support any company that switches to subscription to use. Octane has done this. You cant buy and own it outright anymore so now they will keep making money off you on a monthly basis until you've spent far more than the software would cost. Keep being happy paying to own nothing. I wont.