PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 2015 Octane renderer?



Paul_Boland
04-21-2016, 07:14 PM
Hi Folks.

As I type this, Lightwave is running in the background rendering a ten second animation. It's taking five minutes per frame to render, at 25 frames per seconds, that's just over two hours for one second meaning I've got about twenty hours to wait for a ten second animation. Ouch!! I remember there use to be other render engines available for Lightwave, Octane being one of them, but I can't seem to find any mention of it on the Lightwave website. Does this still exist?

Paul_Boland
04-21-2016, 07:22 PM
Found it. A bit more expensive than I thought. I'll stick with the Lightwave render engine.

js33
04-21-2016, 07:29 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of CPU rendering. You might be able to streamline your scene or change a few render settings to speed up the rendering without affecting the quality to a noticeable degree.

Schwyhart
04-25-2016, 02:31 PM
You may already know all this. If not here it is. If so, others can see it too.

In my experience, don't try to get final quality straight out of any render engine. Try for decent renders and then do the rest in post.
There are several techniques to do this. One is with render passes.
I'm newish to Lightwave, but I would assume LW's render pass system is top notch since it has been used extensively in television.
Render Passes can be set up different ways.
Then you composite everything together in software such as Photoshop, Fusion, Nuke, AfterEffects, Motion, Natron (open source), Hitfilm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4sVez6aC5E

squarewulf
04-25-2016, 03:03 PM
Hi Folks.

As I type this, Lightwave is running in the background rendering a ten second animation. It's taking five minutes per frame to render, at 25 frames per seconds, that's just over two hours for one second meaning I've got about twenty hours to wait for a ten second animation. Ouch!! I remember there use to be other render engines available for Lightwave, Octane being one of them, but I can't seem to find any mention of it on the Lightwave website. Does this still exist?

I use Octane every day, it's a godsend. Beef up your rig with 3 Titan X's and your 10 second animation could take 30 minutes or less to render. Depending on lighting etc...

Norka
04-25-2016, 03:24 PM
^ True dat. 980Ti Hybrids aren't too shabby either. 55 under full load rendering. Score 125 OctaneBench each. I have three.

Ryan Roye
04-25-2016, 03:25 PM
In many cases I would not recommend Octane as a standalone solution for rendering. Unlike the Lightwave renderer, Octane is an all-or-nothing deal in terms of lighting your scenes. Specific controls such as which objects show up in reflections, which lights affect which objects, etc are non-existent; this just comes with the GPU brute force rendering territory. In return for these disadvantages however, you gain high quality, flicker-free global illumination without a huge hit on performance like with the LW renderer.

If you intend to animate using Octane, I'd recommend first learning Fusion or a similar compositing application which allows the user to be selective regarding which render elements apply to which objects.

Another perk of compositing allows you to combine the best of Octane and Lightwave... for example, you can render volumetric lighting with the Lightwave CPU renderer and insert that into an Octane image to great effect. The advantage of course is that in this scenario both the CPU and GPU are utilized in rendering simultaneously.

Norka
04-25-2016, 03:36 PM
Edit: In many situations, I highly recommend Octane as a standalone solution for rendering. I have been using LW Octane plugin every day since 2012 first beta, and have only used LW engine for a couple HV renders here and there. Making tiny tweaks to ones way doing things are a microscopic price to pay for all that is gained. Ryan, have you used Octane since render layers and visibility options were introduced?

Ryan Roye
04-25-2016, 04:00 PM
Ryan, have you used Octane since render layers and visibility options were introduced?

I've been using Octane since version 2.0. The render layers functionality multiplies the render time required by the number of layers used, which hurts their usability for anything but 10-20 second renders (per layer). I prefer to use the more practical color mattes/IDs/etc Octane generates (they add almost no time to the render) and, if needed, re-construct parts of the image using those. The main reason I picked up Octane is that it does what Lightwave's renderer can't; yield global illumination for animation *quickly*. As you can imagine, sometimes physically accurate lighting scenarios can actually hurt the composition of any given shot... the characters might blend into the background too much, there might be too much color saturation in a particular lighting environment, and so on... these are things you can't correct easily in Octane without compositing, whereas in Lightwave I could use specific lights for specific objects, and choose whether or not those lights actually cast shadows and affect everything else in the scene.

Again, you lose control to gain the benefits of the Octane renderer, and you can only truly get that control back via post production workflows.

spherical
04-25-2016, 04:16 PM
As you can imagine, sometimes physically accurate lighting scenarios can actually hurt the composition of any given shot... the characters might blend into the background too much, there might be too much color saturation in a particular lighting environment, and so on... these are things you can't correct easily in Octane without compositing, whereas in Lightwave I could use specific lights for specific objects, and choose whether or not those lights actually cast shadows and affect everything else in the scene.

Put another way, Octane tends toward the Real World environment, where LightWave can create one that cannot exist.

Norka
04-25-2016, 07:24 PM
Ryan, do you mind if I ask what GPU(s) you have in your workstation? I ask, because that is very much a factor in forming ones opinion of Octane and its usefulness in production. For all we know, you have a single GTX 460. And until someone has worked with multiple high-end GPUs in Octane (3 or more), like GTX 780, 780Ti, 980, 980Ti, Titan, Titan X, Titan Z, they are only scratching the surface, and not seeing the full picture, imho. I'm not picking a fight, promise, but I think you may be the first guy I've seen that (seemingly) has a "meh" opinion of Octane.

Of course, ORC is coming too. Uploading many GBs will likely take eons, but as I say in another thread, might be pretty freakin' nice in a pinch.

Ryan Roye
04-25-2016, 07:52 PM
Ryan, do you mind if I ask what GPU(s) you have in your workstation?

I have no complaints on Octane's speed compared to other render engines, even with a single gpu setup. I'm using a single 780TI which I consider the bare minimum for Octane, my typical render times hover between 30 seconds to 4 minutes depending on what the scene involves (usually 200-700 samples). With that card you do have to be mindful of how many Octane surface displacements and whatnot you throw into a scene, but otherwise it works well.

THIBAULT
04-26-2016, 01:24 AM
For me, Octane change all my organisation and workflow.

I have often been critical of Octane overlooked until my friend Richard - Ensign 3D - convinced me to invest in a serious workflow. I bought a second station with 3 Titan X to come refort to my first station 1 TitanX and 1 GTX 980.
My professional life totally changed.

allabulle
04-26-2016, 01:30 AM
For me, Octane change all my organisation and workflow.

I have often been critical of Octane overlooked until my friend Richard - Ensign 3D - convinced me to invest in a serious workflow. I bought a second station with 3 Titan X to come refort to my first station 1 TitanX and 1 GTX 980.
My professional life totally changed.

I think I can imagine how could that change be, but would you care to elaborate a bit on that?

Edit: I also use it, by the way. Only on a TitanX and a 780 6GB at the moment, though.

THIBAULT
04-26-2016, 01:58 AM
Yes,
I was ready to change for 3ds max and Corona .
But I don't like 3ds Max and I love the work area of LW.
With Corona, it takes me about 15-20 H to make a 360 HD 8000 X 4000 px.
Renderfarm take me 75€ for doing this rendering. With scene packaging and uploading, i have my final rendering in 2H.
With Octane and 4 TITAN X and 1 GTX 980 .... I put ... 2 hours too, but all stay in my office.
Here is the link to my last 360 done with Octane.
www.qualit-immo.fr/360/360_T4_COMBAREL.html
It is undeniable Octane remains the rendering engine the most expensive in the world because you have to buy multiple video cards, but it is cheaper than buying a CPU render farm.

allabulle
04-26-2016, 06:33 PM
Thanks for the explanation, THIBAULT.

Yes, it's expensive, but for most things I do it's worth it. All the time I don't spend tweaking settings before render are used to produce more content instead. Even if the final render comes out at the same time as a native LightWave, by the time I have the render done there's another scene ready to go. In that regard it's cheaper, for me, at the end. I might want to expand like you, adding another octane-centric machine, but I'll probably wait and see what the Otoy's on-line rendering service offers and how it pans out. Unless a job lands that requires that horsepower here and now, then it'll be a no-brainer.

I was wondering if your actual way of working was changed specifically because of having much more power for Octane. If there were ramifications I couldn't foresee. I can see what you mean. Thanks for that.

I also considered Corona, even tested it with Blender (there was an alpha or beta to try out for a while, not sure now.) Like you, going the Max route would be a drastic move. I'm using Thea, besides LightWave's native (almost not used for a while) and Octane. I'd love for it to handle animation better and, of course, integration with LightWave. Sadly it isn't there (nor expected either) so that's that. For stills I still prefer it to Octane, most of the time.

Nice 360 render, by the way. Thanks for the link!