Now this sounds a little over-whelming but it is not (IMHO). For example, if there is a lot of motion blur, you may want to increase the camera rays (to remove noise from the blur) but drop the reflection rays as you really are not going to see it all that well anyway. So what is the advantage of all this complexity? Speed as you are directly controlling how and what the render engine needs to be concerned about. Honestly, I have set ray values to 1024 and the render time actually improves while the scene looks better!!! You play with each setting in the main menu and watch how the scene improves (shadows get crisper, noise is removed, etc). too noisy) you increase the rays by a multiple of 2. If you still see some issues with how the reflection is being rendered (eg. That is important to understand as all that ray sampling is compared and Redshift looks to see that the values being calculated for each of the reflection rays when all compared together is below the error threshold you set before the reflection amount for that ray is calculated. Now in reality the information flow on that ray is NOT from the surface to the surroundings but rather from the surroundings back to the surface and ultimately back into the camera. From that point of contact you can determine how many "reflection rays" emanate from that point to capture the surroundings. For example, a camera ray will hit a highly reflective surface. and the error threshold that the program uses to consolidate all that information. For each you can determine the number of rays being generated to render refractions, reflections, etc. As such, there are many ways to do that as there are your camera rays (those coming from the camera), light rays, reflection rays, refraction rays, etc. Now, before we careen into the SJW discussions, let's first understand the difference between the two.īiased renders allow you to set the number of ray bounces that can occur within the scene. I for one prefer bias in my render engines. So the main difference between the two is that Redshift is a "biased" renderer while Octane is "unbiased" While there are some settings for importing VDB files from X-Particles (which is appreciated) more could be done on the integrations side. Now Redshift actually promotes integration with Autodesk plugins more so than C4D plugins - which is kind of odd after being owned two years by Maxon. Fluids and environments are definitely two areas that can tax a render engine. Now what I do like about Octane is that they are partnering with plugin developers like World Creator and Embergen.
#Convert max to obj professional#
I tend to work at the scene level which will not produce 100% optimization that a professional would do who is trying to trick out their production pipeline for a big job, but it is good enough for me. You could optimize Redshift for each texture which can be a bit of overkill for the hobbyists like myself (though required for SSS). Rather, at most one hour for average scenes. Now, I personally have found that optimization is not a day long event as you stated. unbiased renders more so than the differences between Octane and Redshfit actual render times. Again, as pointed out in the post, I am not an Octane user and my examples were more focused on the upsides and downsides of biased vs.