If you have good hardware, a GPU-based rendering engine can spit out renders insanely fast- but again, if you have good hardware, cause that hardware can leave you with a rather large bill or tricky setup process. Artists and programmers (among other unrelated fields) quickly discovered its programmability and potential. The GPU, or ‘graphics processing unit,’ was originally sold to the public for uses such as 3D game rendering. Arnold, for instance, is a CPU-based renderer. The CPU is short for ‘central processing unit,’ and up until relatively recently was the main source of rendering power. For those who don’t quite know what this implies, here’s a very watered-down explanation: CPU/GPU and biased/unbiasedĮach one of these rendering engines works on a slightly different mix of CPU/GPU and biased/unbiased. Today, we’re looking at three competitors: Octane, Corona, and Redshift. That means your choice comes down to affordability, usefulness, and what you’re comfortable with. A few years ago, those with keen eyes could tell what renderer was used based on what the final product looked like, but these days, the lines are blurred. When seeking out a new render engine things can get a tad confusing, though, and a lot of these newer bushy-tailed plugins seem to do a very similar job for those with experience in 3D texturing. Other engines have popped up alongside these more mainstream systems, each boasting a long list of projects and accomplishments, and also a similarly realistic end-product. There are multiple different methods for rendering 3D scenes these days, from built-in systems such as MentalRay or Arnold in Maya, to the magic spouting from Cinema4D. Let’s Talk Render Engines: Octane vs Corona vs Redshift
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |