Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Questions
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related
    Community
      Offtopic
      News
    Hardware
    Photography


Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(36 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies)
  Maxforums.org Members Gallery
(516 replies)
  SON OF POST YOURSELF
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

Vray question against mental ray
show user profile  cbflex
Why is Vray more used than Mental Ray?
I was checking out this video online called, The 5th and 7th or something like that. That guys photorealism is incredible! I read his interview, and it seems that there's no real "trick" to making your scenes photorealistic. The only difference is that he used vray.
I've been using mental ray for sometime now, and I'm pretty good at making close to photorealistic images at relatively good speeds. Most of my renders can go from 5 to 15 minutes a frame.
But for some reason there's always that small inch that shows it's not real. That inch is not visible in this guys work.
Is it really just his rendering engine? Is Vray just much easier to use to produce realistic results?
read 509 times
6/16/2010 10:51:11 PM (last edit: 6/16/2010 10:51:11 PM)
show user profile  FMMirel
it seems that there's no real "trick" to making your scenes photorealistic. The only difference is that he used vray.

that's the most unfair thing you can say about that movie. That movie is fantastic because it has epic modelling, epic rendering, epic composition and epic postwork. If vray would be the reason you'd see movies like that all the time cause vray has a numerous user base. Mental ray is equally as good at creating photoreal images but it does not have so many users cause it's more complex so naturally you see less renders from it and implicitly less epic ones. I even think mental ray has a slight edge when it comes to realism, vray is faster to set up and faster at rendering but that's about it. Between the two, the difference is the artist. The photorealism you are seeking will not come from a single thing like the render engine, it comes from years and years and experience.

edit: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=754315

look at this thread, those images were made with mental ray. I personally haven't seen renders much more real than this so it can be done. Mental ray is capable of amazing renders
White Death
www.code932.com
previously known as jonnybravo_87
read 498 times
6/16/2010 11:10:00 PM (last edit: 6/16/2010 11:20:47 PM)
show user profile  zzubnik
Indeed, and people like Willi Hammes were making photorealistic work back in max 2.5 and the scanline.

It's all the artist.

Heck, even Povray is capable of photo-real work, and it's just a plain old raytracer.

read 489 times
6/16/2010 11:19:42 PM (last edit: 6/16/2010 11:19:42 PM)
show user profile  Bolteon
the "trick" as you put it...


is talent.



that's all you need to know.

-Marko Mandaric



read 453 times
6/17/2010 3:19:57 AM (last edit: 6/17/2010 3:19:57 AM)
show user profile  kiko
agreed

Cheers,
-- David --
read 449 times
6/17/2010 3:33:57 AM (last edit: 6/17/2010 3:33:57 AM)
show user profile  Error404
to a point, the software doesn't make much difference. However, there comes a point at which artistry doesn't make any difference, if the software can't do (in a timly and efficient manor) what you need it to do. And each software is different, and the scale, complexity, and core needs of each studio or project are different. And sometimes those core needs change.

For instance, I know that alot of folks have resorted do doing motion blur in 2d, because MentalRay just couldn't do motion blur very well, especially with reflections and refractions (or so I've been told, and overheard). VRay on the other hand, handles it much better, even when reflections and refractions are involved, peace of cake, and not a huge render hit. That's one of the reasons some studios/projects have switched from mental ray to vray. You can think up any number of reasons to stay with a particular software package, or to move to another one. But if your core needs change on a particular project, it may present a nice opportunity to try out another software that might meet those needs better, and more efficiently (or cheaper, as the case between Renderman and VRay might be!)

Our industry (Visual effects anyway) is in a large part, a problem solving job, not entirely artist work. If one piece of software presents less problems, or has more elegant and efficient solutions to get around certain problems than your existing software, why not switch, or at least start looking into switching!

www.DanielBuck.net - www.DNSFail.com

read 438 times
6/17/2010 6:14:58 AM (last edit: 6/17/2010 6:25:53 AM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window


Support Maxforums.org