octane vs. lux vs. native: animation and the need for speed-ealism
protovu
Posts: 194
Hi Guys,
Speed and Realism......
So, here is the question, and it is somewhat trifurcated. I am ready, willing, and able to use Lux, Octane, or stay native in order to get busy with ambient occlusion, and more realistic imagery generally. But I am trying to figure out which direction is the best way to go.
I am mostly an animator, and speed is a big deal. The native renderer in Carrara has been tried, true, and fast enough for quite some time,
as long as I stay away from utilizing the Global Illumination options. Additionally, I have concerns that shaders I have developed might not behave properly in a new renderer.
I have downloaded the Octane demo for Carrara, and experience serious bog-down when trying to use it. Apparently, my GeForce GTX 550 ti card is now wimpy. Maybe my i7-2600 @3.4, 16GB ram is also wimpy now?
So my question(s), if, and in what order should I:
1. upgrade system entirely (video card, too) - if I did this, would Global illumination of the Carrara native renderer be fast enough to use - eliminating the need to fuss with shaders and scene lighting in plugin renderers?
2. upgrade video card only - get Octane. - spend time dialing in unusable shaders, etc.
3. upgrade video card only - get Luxrender. - spend time dialing in unusable shaders, etc.
For 2 and 3, is it necessary or advisable to go with a Titan, or is a 980 sufficient?
Is there an animator out there who has an opinion on this? Which would provide the best, and fastest renders?
Thank you for your help,
Rick
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Well I have only tested the Carrara demo a bit too
and found like you it bogs down very easily
at this point I am not inclined to buy it yet.
On the otherhand I love the DAZ studio one
just hate using Daz studio!
Textures sizes are my main limit with my GTX760 & if RAM used, not VRAM, actual RAM goes over 11GB, I simply cannot use it on my 16GB machine, the viewport will just loop loading, textures need to be under 100% too, VRAM now I mean.
This is in DAZ studio
I spend a lot of time resizing for big scenes and it does not usually save in my duf scene, sometimes it does, no idea why.
Not quite figured out textures in the Carrara plugin yet.
I get too busy doing stuff to find time to test it much.
I realize Signman is working on the carrara one still and needs support, I just cannot afford to do so yet unfortunately.
Hi Wendy,
Sounds like we are both curious about this dillema.
On the bog down problem, I need to restart Carrara to disengage Octane and get things back up to speed.
On the Octane demo, it would sure be nice to render an animation, watermarks and all, in order to get a better feel for output.
Yes animation cannot be tested with a demo sadly
I took a huge risk buying the DAZ studio plugin but glad I did
was after testing the Poser demo which I liked much too
if I have cash to spare may buy Poser and Carrara ones for the 3 seat discount but I have huge purchases coming up I MUST have like iClone 6 with its indigo plugin too.
So gonna have to do some prioritising.
Yikes. Lot's of programs.
Hopefully, another Carrara animator will chime in on this.
A few weeks ago, I purchased Octane and the Carrara plug-in. For my own test, I created this little movie with simple environments (one outdoor and one indoor).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_TBlXipSYM
These frames took around 24 seconds each and the max samples was 1000. Used Direct Lighting Kernel for indoor scene and Path Tracing Kernel for the outdoor sequence.
Regarding the bogging down, I found I had to use the plug-in's 'pause' option or close its window to keep it from trying to update every time I moved to a new frame or made changes in the sequencer. The Octane preview was mostly used when working on the lighting and materials (and of course producing the final animation sequences).
Hi CyBoRgTy,
Thank you for responding. I like your results. That is quite a nice an animation and storyline, and a lot of work. I can see the AO and depth of field nicely.
Did you animate the depth of field through Octane? I see in the demo that we can control the DOF, but I see no key framing capability.
Do you think that you would be able to achieve similar results in the Carrara native renderer?
Do you have any experience with Luxrender?
Did you find any shader issues with the transition to Octane, or was this animation made from scratch for Octane?
I have an image attached which shows a 12 second native Carrara render at about the level I need. Sharper would be better. I am trying to fake OA here. A typical animation for me would be 1024 x 576, 24fps, 1- 5 minutes. Can Octane, reach this kind of speed and output under certain circumstances....that is, really expensive circumstances?
Thanks for your help,
Rick
I don't do a lot of animation, so my comments may not be 100% applicable. Hopefully SiFiFunk will pop in and add his experiences, I believe he has moved his video production completely to Octane.
First, at this point, if your looking for fast renders, then I don't think LuxRender is even up for consideration. Using GPU only (SLG) isn't for the non-techno render geek. It is a bit of a black box, and material/shader support isn't nearly as good as CPU version of Lux. The GPU renderer is supposed to be greatly improved with the next release, so in the future it may be a viable option, but not right now. Using either the CPU renderer, or the CPU/GPU hybrid will be MUCH slower than Carrara. The renders will be beautiful, but they will take time to complete. I wouldn't consider using Lux for animation without a render farm, a small render farm could make Lux a viable solution if you want high quality unbiased renders, but a render farm would make the native renderer in Carrara fly using GI and high quality settings, so there still isn't any real advantage to using Lux for animation.
Using Octane would be more of a personal style/quality choice. Keep in mind that with Octane you are using an unbiased renderer (or very very nearly unbiased when using the Direct Lighting kernel), This is similar to running Carrara in fully raytraced/GI mode with raytraced DOF. If this is the type of image/video quality your are looking for, then Octane would be a wise choice. Octane will literally blow the doors off of the internal renderer in Carrara when looking for the best possible render and using max or near max settings. If what you want to achieve doesn't require top notch lighting/materials realism, then Ocatne may not be a good fit.
The general industry trend in CG animation toward greater realism does come at a cost ..... longer render times. Many of the big studios measure per frame render speeds in hours (per given cpu resources), not minutes or seconds. So if you are looking for lighting/materials quality in your videos even getting somewhat close to the current industry standards, either Octane or a small render farm might be your best options.
IMHO the true advantage to using Octane isn't the render speed (though it is amazing to get great renders quickly), but the interactive nature of setting up lighting and materials. That is where I really save a lot of time. Using Octane has cut my scene set up time to a fraction of what it typically takes just using Carrara and the internal render engine. I've always preferred using Carrara with GI and nearly unbiased render settings, so Octane seems extremely fast to me compared to the 4 to 20 hour render times I was used to. My final render times are typically 20 min. to 2 hours, but I'm also rending at double the size I used to.because it is so much faster.
I also have the DS plugin, but my experiences with it are the opposite of what Wendy has experienced. The DS plugin has some great features, but it's stability (and development) has not been nearly as good as the Carrara plugin. There are some renders I would like to do using DS and dynamic cloth, but it is so unstable compared to the Carrara plugin, I just can't force myself to go back to the DS plugin until a more stable version is available (if ever?). I've literally run Carrara (8.5) with the Octane plugin for hours/days without restarting Carrara - it really is that stable on my system (a laptop)!
I'm not sure why you might be experiencing sluggishness in the Carrara interface while using the Octane plugin, unless you have not adjusted the render priority in the settings window (see attached). I typically run it at low priority, which does slow my renders a bit, but it also means that I can work with Carrara, or any other application without any display delays or sluggish behavior. I've even rendered in C8.1 while rendering with Octane and C8.5 with no ill affects!
Bottom line though, whether the Octane plugin for Carrara would be a benefit for your work flow really depends on what you want to achieve, what features of Carrara you want to use, and your preferred render style. I think SiFiFunk is running his renders with Octane at an average of less than 30 seconds per frame (though I could be wrong), which for unbiased renders is outstanding!!
IMVHO the Octane plugin has been a huge plus for my use of Carrara, and I am very happy with it, but I do mostly stills. There is a bit of a learning curve, but due to the unbiased nature of Octane, materials and lighting tend to be lot more predictable (at least for me they are).
Dustrider,
Thank you for such a comprehensive response to my query. It is a real pleasure to read such clear, well considered points. Yes, if SciFiFunk, or another realistic animator can weigh in, this would also be helpful.
I will take a look at lowering the priority in the Octane demo to further investigate, but overall, it seems that if I can fake and fiddle with the Carrara native renderer, for now anyway, this may be the way to go. My animations are not unlike the image I posted above, in their look. Usually a little sharper, though. I would be very curious to know if the level of render of my above posted image can be achieved in Octane in 12 seconds. The native Carrara renderer has been very trustworthy for me also. Developing a heavy file that is specific to a renderer could put me in a bind.
I feel comfortable eliminating Lux from the equation based on your observations, but I would only entertain Octane if the speed of the native Carrara renderer could be matched on a local machine. Thank you again for your help.
Rick
I have an old machine, old graphics card and old Carrara. ;-) So I can't speak to these new-fangled renderers.
I will say, that a big help to me with rendering an animation, or even a large, time consuming still, is Carrara's network rendering nodes. If you have more than one computer, then it is worth looking into if you haven't already done so.
This little video used all the tricks. Network rendering, compositing, etc. etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-sNje4k0o
This video describes a method of getting a GI look described in Jeremy Birn's book, Digital Lighting & Rendering called an Occlusion Sandwich. My example isn't that great, but it describes the steps and shows it is possible at least to use it for animations if desired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxeluTryr_0
Thank you, Addict.
Really good suggestions, and that is quite an involved project you have there. Looks like serious time, sweat, and rendering.
Yes, I should look into render nodes. My hesitation......love the simplicity
of simple local machine rendering. But, darn it, I should put on my big boy pants
and take a look at network, render nodes rendering. Rumor has it that the faster machine sets the
standard for the render?
The sandwich idea is certainly worth a look, too. I am wondering if there is something I can
look at in Premiere which can utilize a single output. The idea of re-rendering little fixes, times 3,
is a killer to me, and I hate having a bunch of render patches.
I think the render nodes were updated in C8 to offer more control, but I don't have C8, so I can't tell you what they are or how they work. It is true with C7.2 Pro that the faster machine sets the pace and you can wait for the slower machines to catch up, but there are things you can do, such as lower the tile size to compensate. Also, if the node machines have multiple processors/cores, it can take advantage of those as well.
Like all things in life, there are some caveats. If you use plugins or custom leaves, etc. those will also need to be on the node machines to be used by Carrara. Also, if you use the text primitive, it is best to convert to a vertex object in case the fonts are different on the node computer. If the node can't find the font you used to create the text primitive, it won't render it. Converting to a vertex object eliminates this problem.
Regarding the Black Hole video, it did take some time to do, but not as much as you'd expect. Planning my shots in "layers" and compositing saved hours on my render times, even though I had as many as four layers. Also, rendering spherical renders or just plain stills for background plates saves a ton of time rendering animations if you don't have to render the actual geometry during the animation. For instance, the bit at the end with the astronauts uses a spherical render for the Cygnus, with only the astronauts, Maximillian and the pipe for actual geometry.
I don't know if the Occlusion Sandwich video was any quicker to render than if I had been smart about light placement, but if I want a GI feel to the shadows, it was much quicker than actually using GI- at least on my old system. The faster systems these days may make it a moot practice. Especially as the un-biased renerers mature in how they handle textures and such.
If I had the money to buy Octane and a machine to run it on, I would still have to think about it. I love Carrara's shading system and procedural functions and would hate to limit myself to very simple functions and image maps. The other area that is of concern is the limits in replication. As the plugin and renderer mature, I'm sure these issues will disappear, but for right now, for what I like to do, it's not quite ready for prime time.
Excellent points. I am with you on the Carrara shading system, etc. It will take some seriously notable, easy to use improvements to get me to leap from the native renderer.
Also, thank you for the info on compositing and the need for bringing all node machines to the same level on plugins, and other information. That would have been quite irritating to find out the hard way.
I guess what I would really like to see, is steady, incremental, completely integrated improvement to the native renderer with each software version of Carrara.
Being brand new to the Carrara shader system as I am, I find the Octane shading system to be very robust and not at all limited. I'm not missing the Carrara shader system in the least. Octane's shader system is also very fast to get to know. Takes almost no time to master Octane shaders. and when I say master I mean legitimate mastery. Everything is so simple.
Procedurals are nice, but unless they are baked onto a model as a UV map they aren't really that useful for professionals who is what Octane is aimed at. Further, from what I can see Octane has roughly the same amount of native procedural algorithms as Carrara, roughly 10 types of noise filters. To put it another way, neither Carrara nor Octane can hold a candle to Bryce in that regard. No one is more procedural than Bryce. There are literally 50 or more filters in Bryce.
And this brings me to my point. I find myself using Octane Materials for pretty much every surface in my current wip scene. Why, because it is so much easier. Mastery is nearly automatic.
Thanks Rashad,
The problem for me, could be that I need to leverage files, and shaders, that I have developed over the years, towards new projects. It is disappointing to open a file that is fairly dialed in, but which could stand a little AO and GI, only to find unrecognizable imagery in the Octane render window. Additionally, some of the larger files are proving so heavy, bogged down by Octane, that I can not get into the Octane settings to adjust.
If I I were starting files from scratch, I would probably have an experience similar to yours. Unfortunately, I struggle with the idea of investing lots of hours into a file(s) that has good native renderer output, output that the client is happy with, only to bump up the AO and GI to a level of satisfaction that only I can perceive. It is not that I am entirely against doing the un-billable work, just worried I could be headed for trouble.
Have you found a way to keyframe the depth of field in Octane? Are the Octane shaders fully animatable? Can an avi. be keyframed in a shader channel?
Finally........can Octane render an image similar in quality to the above image in 12 seconds?
I am not against digging into this further, just hate losing hard fought ground.
Hi. It's late here so I'll be brief for now, but feel free to ask questions.
Yes I've moved to Octane now for my Carrara renders. I set the card priority to low and It doesn't impact rendering performance while at the same time allows me to use the rest of the machine.
The reason why Octane is better than native Carrara for animation is as follows:-
1. Instant frame preview (assumes you have at least one top end card in place like a GTX 780 Ti). If you are going to animate you'll need this.
2. Instant modelling preview (For movie making you'll always end up doing some modelling).
3. Scalable. I used to use Network rendering, but for large or complex scenes you'll run into bugs now and again meaning you can't use it. With octane just keep adding cards (and therefore power and cooling).
4. Speed. Treat every scene like an outdoor scene and it will stay fast (for indoor take out walls not in shot etc).
5. Light scattering. Imho Carrara can't hope to match Octane for how an object LOOKS when light is applied to it.
6. Global Illumination. I am limited to the Direct lighting kernel (so not so good indirect lighting), but there are tricks to part compensate for this. Turn GI on with Carrara native and kiss fast frames goodbye.
My latest work (note I am still learning myself here :) )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVeV27zEQ5k
I got these frames down to an average of 40 secs each on a system with a GTX 780 Ti and a GTX 760, when I started rendering at just 200 samples (Octane 2.0 cleans up an image real fast).
Wonderful work Sci-fi. How are you getting transparency to work in the direct lighting kernel. I know it must work but I get these silvery looking surfaces. Any thoughts?
Hi SciFiFunk, and thank you for weighing in on this. You make a compelling argument, and your work speaks strongly in support of that argument.
I do have a few questions, though.
1. When do you sleep? ...wow, that is a lot of work!
2. would a pair of new 780s, with my existing system (i7-2600 @3.4, 16GB ram ) be sufficient, or would I need to upgrade the system entirely to achieve a satisfactory Octane experience?
2a. any reason to try to utilize my current GeForce GTX 550 ti in concert with a new 780 or better ?
3. Can the Depth of Field be keyframed in Octane?
The link below is a snippet from something I may use in a demo reel......my first, and long overdue. I would like it to have better OA. There is a darkness the Gamma correction makes milky. This is why I am hopeful with Octane. Still, I think there may be more faking to do here. Your thoughts appreciated,
Rick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXz09KItl-M&feature=youtu.be
Geez, dude! That is frickin' awesome! You've nailed the look of the gloves and the movement is top notch. Color me impressed!
With a bit of testing, discovery, and imagination, I've also picked up methods to use the global illumination system to get ultra-fast renders using the native engine... but I still prefer using my other method of designing out my own illumination as needed on a scene-to-scene basis, and tweaking for speed. I just prefer manual control over all aspects over leaving most of it to algorithms. But that's me. ;)
Sorry for delayed reply (away on business).
If you enable Carrara's depth of field in the camera effect settings, you can easily set keyframes for the depth of field. The 'rack focus' moves in my movie were done through the use of keyframes (at selected frames, set focal length in the Carrara depth of field pop up window).
I believe Octane's physical based rendered yields some results that may not be possible (or easily achieved) with Carrara's rendered. Octane more realistically interprets how light affects objects.
I find 12 seconds per frame rendering using Carrara's renderer usually produces animation sequences with a lot of artifacts (noisy, etc; especially if 1280 x 720 or greater resolution).
I don't have any experience with the Lux renderer.
Working with materials was super easy. I built the two scene's knowing I was going to use Octane. I used Octane materials on everything in the outdoor scene. With the characters in the indoor scene, I used the original textures (I did not change any of them; except for the desk where I used a wood material from the octane library). My strategy was to load objects and if they looked fine in the octane view port, I didn't mess with the material. If it looked bad or not what I desired, then I would change it to use an Octane material and configure it to suit the scene.
I have two GTX 780's; one with 6GB and the other is a ti with 3 GB. Getting acceptable performance could be expensive, especially if you have to purchase the video cards, power supply, and Octane. It depends on what you are willing or able to spend to get the performance you seek.
I hope this helps..
Rashad and Protovu
Most of the questions were answered when I was sound asleep. To finish off then ...:)
1. Transparency. I still approach materials like a noob - I use the live DB and work from there. I will be releasing a tutorial on this today (sep thread though). So pick some glass you like the sound of and drag it over your Carrara shader (drag to top of the shader) and it's done! The stained glass bit is the same as for Carrara native.
2. Graphics cards. Just one GTX 780Ti will get you acceptable results quickly if you can add more it gets better! I'm going to be hitting ebay again as soon as the newer card hits the market place (not a titan).
Thank you for the encouragement, Evil.
Dartenbeck, I am also pulled in your direction. The native shaders and renders have been good to me, since Raydream. I am losing my grip though........
Thank you SciFi, for the additional information. I will probably try the 780.
Thank you, CyBoRgTy for the specifics. Yes, the expenditure on the vid. card + Octane will add up, but , oh well, that is our rodeo.
Unlike you, I have not had any issues with artifacts on Carrara native renders. Also, it looks like NVidia has solved the power supply issue with the new cards.
I have uploaded an image that shows what I am interested in pursuing with Octane, and what I am worried about. But, SciFi, you are indicating that the shader issue will not be a problem. I need to figure out the live DB....I hope it is available through the demo.
Basically, To me, the Carrara render shows a certain darkness that I am not happy with, even when I try to fake GI. The Carrara image seems oppressive compared to the Octane image. This darkness may work really well for a dystopian, or horror type of image, but I am trying not to scare or depress people. I want them to be enthused about science and medical tech. This is the reason I want to look harder at Octane. This thread has proven really invaluable. Thank you all for sharing. I may be slow to progress, given some family and work happenings, but I will be sure to keep you in the loop as I move forward.
Here is an issue I am not crazy about. The 2 composite images show glow and transparencies drastically different from the native Carrara render. In both cases, what is depicted is nerve impulse travel.
The image with the brain has glowing light bulbs which are not visible in the Octane render. The other image has an avi in the glow channel of the nerve shader which causes the band of purple to travel up and down the nerve.
Are these effects possible with Octane?
I really need to be able to put very specific masks and avi files in glow and alpha channels. Are these functions available in Octane?
One more note...the sampling was cut to 200 , yet the render time was really slow with Octane. Are multiple transparencies going to be an issue?
Think if you make the glowing textures emiters it may work better
I have only done this in studio so far not carrara but certain Scifi or one of the others will explain steps
Wendy,
I think you are right. In fact this might be the way to further fake AO in Carrara.