PDA

View Full Version : LW Render Versus Octane Render



silviotoledo
04-13-2011, 09:25 AM
it's said GPU with a GTX 980 graphic card is getting 20 to 50 times faster than CPU rendering.

Octane render is more photorreal than lightwave oe, but need to verify the rendering time, once they say it's 50 times faster.

What is this reality for lightwave?

Need doing comparison between GPU and CPU rendering

Test link here:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6230&p=52125


Model for render test attached to render in octane and lightwave.
Please if you have octane do a render in 1920 x 1080 for comparison.

Hieron
04-13-2011, 11:12 AM
Not sure if you should post direct links to this thread in a few other threads as well to drag people in. Bit annoying.

Got no time, nor Octane. It's not expensive and there will be alot of debate on settings differences etc etc anyway. Why not just get it yourself. It's quite cheap. A conclusive result for your question for a specific scene, would be really interesting though.

erikals
04-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Octane is quite slow in most cases... much slower than LW...

go with LW and optimize the time by using tricks
(camera animation baking, compositing, reducing noise in comp, etc-etc...)

use Octane only for reference... or stills (imo)

prometheus
04-13-2011, 01:19 PM
Octane is quite slow in most cases... much slower than LW...

go with LW and optimize the time by using tricks
(camera animation baking, compositing, reducing noise in comp, etc-etc...)

use Octane only for reference... or stills (imo)

donīt quite agree here, at least not getting fast render out of the preview window that holds up good enough for some product shots, and Octane is that way much faster than VPR or FPRime
Edit and realism is in my opinion a level above lightwave, for the most part if you set it up correctly, and faster without tweaking lights and hdrs.

Michael

erikals
04-13-2011, 01:41 PM
not so sure, Octane render times for interiors for example is often 50min per frame. (depending)

Octane "outdoor" renders however are way faster, versus quality.

renders in Octane are much better than LW, but like i said, there are cheats to copy/fake the Octane quality.
usually by using an Octane render as a reference when redoing the scene in LW.

 

gristle
04-13-2011, 03:16 PM
Have they done wny work on the node editor? It was (6mths ago) really painful to use if you had an scene with more than half a dozen surfaces.

Andy Meyer
04-14-2011, 09:57 AM
50 times faster on paper.
maybe 1 specific operation... so dont hope for too much, imho.

erikals
04-14-2011, 10:41 AM
that's 50 times faster than LW if you use minimum pixel spacing and maximum pixel spacing at "1"...
of course, nobody does that in LW, it's two completely different things...

(or somebody correct me...)

Octane is of course, like stated earlier, much faster than LW if you render LW in max pix spacing 1 and minimum pix spacing 1, instead of using interpolated.

(yes, these are two different things)

but try to render an interior animation in Octane... what rendertime will you get?
not under 30min per frame, from what i have seen.

again, for exterior renders there are different rules, Octane is much faster here, versus quality.

ZE_COLMEIA
04-14-2011, 01:58 PM
For me it will always be an unfare analysis brecause we are not looking the quality of those renders, the way to have a "v-ray alike" render in lightwave is to use k-ray and octane in a k-ray alike render is very faster....

prometheus
04-20-2011, 08:11 AM
no issues to handle 477 077 polygons in octane, this is one of the machines Im working on right now in lightwave...see attached images from octane render.

the object is a solidworks construction exported throu deep explorer in to lightwave.
Generally thereīs not much problem for lightwave to render the stuff, but this seems a little tougher, It consist of 31 surfaces and each one of them has vertex normals smoothing and a lot of conductor node, radiosity and a pair of area lights and a dome light..so It is very very slow in Lightwave both with fprime wich is the faster than the VPR wich really is slow for this kind of stuff..final renderer is also quite slow.

In octane It just flies away with flying colors, no bogging when moving and rotating the views, and just a second or three to get instant feedback with the iterative renderer, and maybe 10-20 seconds to get a decent look..in lightwave it would take several minutes to get a good proper feedback.
The material and lighting and render realism is also much easier to set up in octane for me.

I will need to remodel cushions in lightwave and I simple import those subdivision models in to deep explorer and from there match them were they should be and then export out to obj format and in to octane.

tests are done with old demo version on windows 7 64 bit
nvidia gtx 460
intel core i7 860
8 gb ram
Thatīs my job machine..at home see specs under my sign.

Michael

ZE_COLMEIA
04-20-2011, 08:18 AM
Considerable.

Pixelight
04-22-2011, 06:59 AM
Could anybody point out what are the pros and cons of Octane and the LW render engine and what one is better than the other at?
Thanks.

erikals
04-23-2011, 03:22 AM
I'll try...

Motion Blur = LW
Interior Render = Octane (more accurate / more details, faster, but still slow, check forum rendertimes)
(*for interior animations i would use Octane as a reference match the result in LW manually and bake)*
Exterior Render = Octane (as of memory limits LW can be better, and LW is also fast at rendering exteriors)
Advanced nodes and SSS Renders = LW
Cartoon GI renders = LW (because it has interpolated GI, faster)
Accuracy / Realism = Octane (but due lack of Octane nodes LW often is the only way)
Flicker = Octane (it won't give you any flicker problems AFAIK)
Baking = LW

like i said earlier, using Octane as a reference render for LW can often be a good idea
)* =this requires photo-manipulation and some other tricks, can be tricky. esp. if a light source moves

(this said, i've seen plenty of bad Octane renders, so using the right settings is critical)

Pixelight
04-23-2011, 12:00 PM
I'll try...

Motion Blur = LW
Interior Render = Octane (more accurate / more details, faster, but still slow, check forum rendertimes)
(*for interior animations i would use Octane as a reference match the result in LW manually and bake)*
Exterior Render = Octane (as of memory limits LW can be better, and LW is also fast at rendering exteriors)
Advanced nodes and SSS Renders = LW
Cartoon GI renders = LW (because it has interpolated GI, faster)
Accuracy / Realism = Octane (but due lack of Octane nodes LW often is the only way)
Flicker = Octane (it won't give you any flicker problems AFAIK)
Baking = LW

like i said earlier, using Octane as a reference render for LW can often be a good idea
)* =this requires photo-manipulation and some other tricks, can be tricky. esp. if a light source moves

(this said, i've seen plenty of bad Octane renders, so using the right settings is critical)

Thanks.

My aim is VFX in the form of digital environments like city fly-throughs, building externals, digital sets (interiors) and vehicles like car animations as well as weather effects such as fog, rain, snow and pyrotechnics like explosions, gun fire and so on.

Not really into arch-viz, although a huge majority of what I will be producing will be buildings and interiors.

Do you think I need Octane or Kray?

Iain
04-23-2011, 03:05 PM
I think we are always after the holy grail, the 'magic render button' when it can often be right under our metaphorical noses.

When Maxwell came out loads of users were disgusted that they couldn't produce works of art with it like those in the promos.

The secret is to learn your tools inside out. You can get amazing things with LW or Modo out of the box. If they don't cut it for you, try Kray or Maxwell or Octane. They are all limited in different ways and you will only get the best results from them when you really understand what you are doing and put the work in.

silviotoledo
04-23-2011, 03:15 PM
Prometheus

Octane image looks really cool!
Coul'd you do the same render in both ( lw and octane ) for comparison in terms of realism and rendering time?

Elmar Moelzer
04-23-2011, 03:21 PM
I think that quality wise LWs renderer is very good. We have always had good results from it and it has always been very relyable. Few bad surprises.
The only thing it is still lacking is speed. If only it was a tad faster...
I hope that NT will keep working on that.

abdelkarim
05-03-2011, 08:27 AM
so who fast then other . in my case i have one card graphic GTX 285 and i 7 950 8 core . how fast render then other . for me the i7 8 core fast then octane because i never try octane . but im jsut aked who work with octane render in my case how fast ???

thnx so much.

Elmar Moelzer
05-03-2011, 08:46 AM
so who fast then other . in my case i have one card graphic GTX 285 and i 7 950 8 core .

I think it depends on the complexity of the scene.
I have found that on my reference setup Core2Duo with a 8800 M GTS, I will often switch back and forth between the CPU and GPU rendering in VoluMedic. Once the memory limits of the graphics card are hit, you will definitely want to stay on the CPU. I also prefer the responsiveness of the CPU when thngs get more complex in the scene. The GPU will do full screen resolution, but the CPU is just more responsive because more complexity means less parallelism and that means the GPU gets slower.
This is why GPU renderers usually use brute force methods. These are simpler. Simplicity is king on the GPU.

Laticis
05-03-2011, 09:43 AM
One thing to be aware of with Octane Render, for license purposes (theft protection) to use it you must be constantly connected to the internet. For this reason I have stopped / can't use it any more and hopefully when V1 is released this will no longer be required.

This has caused some grief.

You could also run into limitations by the amount of memory on your GPU, it is also the only software I have used will cause my GTX 480 to run hot.

ZE_COLMEIA
05-03-2011, 01:40 PM
I dont know if there is something to do with this topic but this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cuXgRVMvZ0&feature=player_embedded

is a realtime physically based render running in GPUs of obsolete systems like xbox 360 and ps3

the scenes looks really complex for me with lots of complex objects, hdr light, Reflections, post processing effects etc. All of that running in realtime in a good resolution and in a decent framerate.

The realism in that images are not near the realism of octane's renders but I just think about how many rendertime will I need to have that quality renders using a cpu based render system? and What will be the render quality when they will be using DX11 and the new generations gpus?

Elmar Moelzer
05-03-2011, 02:11 PM
I have seen that tech demo. It does look impressive indeed, but it does not equal current production CPU- renderers.
There are lots of instabilities in the images. Small flickers and other issues.

ZE_COLMEIA
05-03-2011, 03:45 PM
Come on, its a realtime demo, we are talking about 30 fps or more in a 2004 hardware (a geforce 7800 gtx relative power with dx9) with that quality, offcourse there are lots of loseness there due to optimization issues but today we have hundreds percent faster single videocards (with the possibility of paralelism) and no need for that fps if the goal is a video or still frames render, I insist, if you try to have that quality of image in a high end updated computer with the best cpu available, how much time will you need to render a video in that quality with a cpu based render?

Elmar Moelzer
05-03-2011, 04:01 PM
The problem is that the GPU taxation does not scale linearily with complexity. You can add as little as a single instruction to a shader and cause performance to be quartered.

djlithium
05-19-2012, 01:19 PM
Without motionblur, its effectively a non-starter for VFX work - I can't stand stuff that uses vector blur techniques to get "motionblur". This is where LightWave blows many render engines out of the water. If LightWave's motionblur technology and approach were closely integrated into Octane that would make a big difference. Still, having another rendering solution out there for LightWave is not a bad thing, the big trick though is getting something that looks one way in Octane, back into LightWave exactly and vice versa so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, except from render times.