[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: blender-unreal.png (256 KB, 470x777)
256 KB
256 KB PNG
Which looks better, UE4 or Blender Cycles?
Incomparable. Entirely different rendering methods.
Exactly, that's why we need to find out.

Blender Cycles:

Unreal Engine 4:
What? No, you just can't compare them. It's like asking whether a baked potato or french fries is better. Same base but entirely different result.
On a subjective level, which I guess you're ultimately asking for, I'll go with Cycles as the better-looker. Simply because it's proper path-tracing rather than rasterization. Doesn't have to rely on lighting hacks like AO and screen-space effects, can simulate complex materials like subsurface scattering and glass (something something caustics in cycles is ass), entirely accurate lighting since it's entirely unbiased, the whole list. Now, I give you all these technical details just because ultimately it's in the hands of the artist. I won't disagree that UE can't produce some fantastic imagery, nor that some Cycles renders look like ass, because I know that manipulated by the right set of hands either can produce stunning results. Cycles just ends up having the edge over UE because it can just handle so much more effects (at the cost of render speed).
You really should have thrown a more apples-to-apples here, like UE vs Eevee or Cycles vs Arnold. Those are worth comparing because they're the same technology.
Not going in depths, but in kind of layman,
>Real-time, Rasterization
>Light exists
>Let's have this light have a direction vector, intensity, and rotation vector
>If light direction vector is perpendicular to the surface normal vector, pixel is lit. Otherwise not.
And other tricks. (my example is extremely basic and bare-bones, the stuff actually used is a lot more sophisticated)
>Used in games because it's very cheap for the GPU, and very fast.

>Blender Cycles
>Not real-time, Ray traced.
>Light has a position, direction, intensity.
>Now let's throw a tonne of rays that send information back if they do/don't hit something(bruteforce)
>Basically acts like real light. Used in movies, extremely slow depending on the complexity but extremely realistic, too.

PBR Rasterization is what Unreal, Unity, and other bunch of newer engines and developers use, which is pretty great(AC: Unity and Uncharted 4 for example), but not as great as Ray tracing, since it's essentially mimicking how actual light works. In terms of realism, Ray tracing looks the best. In terms of non photo-realistic rendering, both are great.
>rasterized real-time engine vs. raytraced offline engine

It's just not comparable. The two are completely different kinds of rendering engines for two different purposes.

Eevee, which is Blender's upcoming real-time engine for 2.80 is much closer to what UE4 is.
French fries are better and so is ue4, ya dick.
Wow, fantastic post, Anon! The elaboration you've provided for your point is so succinct I almost missed it! Oh man, imagine if you forgot to back up your statements, everyone would totally undervalue your post because an argument without further explanation is worth jack shit!
If you need elaborate arguments to be convinced that UE4 is better than Eevee, you have serious problems.
What? Read again.

The real question is, is eevee as blurry and cartoony as unreal?

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.