Hello I'm asking your opinions on which renderer is better, before I spend hours studying it:>Vray, Arnold, or Renderman>Arnold is CPU-based>V-Ray is CPU-based>V-Ray RT uses CPU that can be used alongside the GPUs.>Renderman rendering uses CPU+GPUShould then renderman and V-Ray RT the best options? I know some may say that my pc isn't that powerfull I have an i7 6700, a gtx 1070 and 16gb of ram is what I have and will have for some time.Which rendering software would be the best for my machine?
I hope the thread doesn't die on me.
>>596117I'm talking mostly out my ass here but usually GPU based rendering is better, but idk you can use the CPU+GPU thing too cause neither will bottleneckI run an i7 4790k and a 970 and use the latter for all my rendering shit
GPU rendering is the future. CPU+GPU is a half-measure and CPU rendering might as well be fossilized dinosaur shit.
They all give good results and are industry proven. Renderman doesn't use CPU+GPU yet, that comes in the next release. Currently CPU only. Ignore Renderman and Vray for now, get Redshift and Arnold and learn these. Both are easier to learn.>>596132Don't talk out of your ass. GPU renderer are not better, only faster, but the image quality of CPU renderers might be a little better.
>>596133>GPU rendering is the futureWell I can imagine that using multiple GPUs will probably be more powerfull than using dual CPUsBut if that the case GPUs price may skyrocket like ram prices did this year, something that may should keep in mind.>>596135>Ignore Renderman and Vray for now, get Redshift and Arnold and learn these. Both are easier to learn.Redshift looks very good, but should I really learn both?I mean Redshift and Arnold.
>>596117Redshift. Gpu rendering is awesome
>>596139Arnold is piss easy to understand. Give it a couple of days of learning and you've got it. Yes, learning more than one tool to get the job done is recommended. Don't put all your eggs into one basket and don't be afraid, learning a renderer is mostly fun and easy. Like i said Redshift is faster, but in some cases Arnold just looks better. Learn Redshift first, if you 've got it, switch to Arnold. Check out this channel for learning Arnold: https://www.youtube.com/user/URsProductions/videos
Arnold is the easiest to set up realistic shots in. Everything else uses meme techniques to fake photons.
>>596872are you implying Redshift is really just red shit?
>>596139>>596178The thing about Redshift and Arnold is they both use a very similar PBR system for the basic shader. Once you've learned one it is extremely easy to learn the other. For simple materials you can even use Python to translate your shader networks from one to the other automatically and the results only need slight adjustment.
>>596918redshift is really only good for motion blur and dof, that is where the gainz come. That can be added in post and since the result will 99% of the time be 24fps anyway, it wont matter because motion blur is a camera capturing defect...
>>596117Kind of depends on your intended use. Redshift is getting used for full cinematics now, popular among gaming studios for trailers and such (Blizzard for example) so it is usable as a full production GPU based rendered.If you want the more traditional "CPU is best, use only that" then use Arnold for final render and Redshift for GPU based fast work.They're very similar in setup and operation, so you can easily learn both and be proficient at both. Also since Arnold is free with Maya, you won't have to pay for 2 different renderers.