Liard

just a little renderer test and rant. nothing important

Added 2019-02-05 19:55:33 +0000 UTC

Ive been using a very insanely basic renderer, for the past 3-4 years. IVe managed to get somewhat decent looking images, due to making them appear more flat, and adding a lot of post editing and shadows in photoshop and after effects.

Today though i got my hand on a newer version of 3ds max, and a new renderer that came with it called arnold.

So I decided to do a little test. The image to the right, is my original test, and it is rendered with 2 lights, arnold materials and arnold lights. However, it did add a rendering time of 2 minutes, which would be even longer once i add a background.

So I decided to make a quick test by just taking the arnold materials and renderer, and using the standard lights in 3ds max, that has no ambient occlusion or global illumination (these 2 things are essentially what a majority of the time makes a render look good, as it adds lights that cast onto other items surfaces, and jumps back and fourth, and adds shadows in creases.)

Even without those 2 items though, the arnold renderer did manage to spit out a fairly decent render, on half the time.

I really want to test these things some further, and hopefully upp the quality of my work some. These images are all fairly poorly lighted, but they really do show a big difference between the renderers in question.

So with some more attention put into the lighting, Im hoping to test out the middle solution, as it increases the quality fairly decently, while adding ~50% less rendering time then the best/most realistic render.

It will sadly double my rendering times in general <:D.... but i think it might be worth it.