gpu

[superflea]

I agree with wfolta on this one, having just upgraded to the new Pixelmator, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to stick with the pre Snow Leopard-only version. It's like a new app, much faster overall, and God knows any speed improvement helps with graphic apps.

The point being, yes some users will have to upgrade to the new os, perhaps they'll make some noise about it, but it's important not be be worried about that because it's for the greater good in the end:wink: , otherwise what's the point of Apple supporting and pushing newer tech and developing Grand Central and all that?

 

[podperson]

The big problem with Snow Leopard only is it cuts out pre-Intel Macs. I'm all in favor of it, but I don't know what Martin's user base looks like.

In the mean time, Lux will probably be GPU-based long before C3D is (but it won't be super fast since it's unbiased).

 

[archie]

The big problem with Snow Leopard only is it cuts out pre-Intel Macs

that's why i'm suggesting an add-on approach.
the monolithic one-app-one-render-engine ideology seems outdated to me.
it's not about replacing the cheetah render with a full blown state-of-the-art open cl only algorithm but to start the public beta testing of an additional render manager (for snowleo-intel only), that first will not support particles, all materials or lighting options but will show a fast unbiased real time interface render (pathtracing or whatever).
so martin has not to engage in a stressy bugfree deliverance but could have fun throwing in whatever works and then the community reactions will guide the process.
within two years the features will exceed the old renderer which can be kept or phased out.
i'm sure that would be big fun and beneficial for developer and users as well.

currently there is mostly cartoony or technical game-related stuff shown on this forum, with luke the most important composer of realistic scenes is gone with no one to replace him, because it is simply too difficult for not artistic geniuses within this app, whereas there is lots of realistic stuff in the galleries of other apps that don't require the amount of lighting-set-up-sophistication that is needed in cheetah.

- archie

 

[Martin]

Hi,
I guess that at least 50% of the Mac users are still on Leopard. So dropping Leopard would cost me 50% of my sales. Something I definitely can't afford.

On the other side are only very few Macs out there which can actually profit form a OpenCL raytracer. For raytracing you need at least a ATI Radeon 4850. And that is already the absolute minimum. While a Nvidia 9400M might perform some simple image filters nicely with OpenCL it is way to weak for decent raytracing.

So from a OpenCL raytracer only the iMac i7 and some Mac Pro users might profit while it would cost me 50% of my sales.

For a developer it is always nice to develop just for one operating system version since it makes many things much easier. But I personally want to support at least the current and the former version of OS X. Which is currently Leopard and Snow Leopard.

I'm already working on an OpenCL raytracer for experimental purposes. And as archi proposed it is currently handled as an external renderer so that Cheetah3D can stay 10.5. So with some luck I have something working once there are enough raytracing capable graphics cards out there.

Archi, the Cheetah3D material system is currently way to complex that it could be run in OpenCL even on the fastest PC graphics cards. So for the first, the pure unbiased OpenCL raytracers should be bitmap textures only. If you want complex material system you need a hybrid renderer. But luckily hardware is evolving and also I still have to put quite some work in my OpenCL raytracer.

Bye,
Martin

 

[SurfingAlien]

Hi,
I have to share some (confused) thoughts about that...

as I said before I'm a fan of GPU powered (possibly unbiased and physically based) renders: I have an Octane license and I do some test with SLG (Luxrender OpenCL project) de temps en temps: I really think this is the future at least for photo-real production

that said I see and share Martin's idea (not dropping pre-SL users and possibly not making Cheetah a whole different project). each of us love cheetah for some (different) reasons, and each of us has an idea on how it should evolve and grow in the future

I totally agree with the "modular" approach you're talking about: an optional "advanced" render module (OpenCL powered and possibly unbiased -i.e. progressively converging- if not 100% physically based) would be an excellent add on for archivizers and product designers. it would be almost useless for those of us who use Cheetah for games and cartoony so it's a good idea not asking them to pay for something they don't really need, while others would happily pay, say, a 50$ more for this "advanced" tool.

I know this sounds a bit like C4D policy but we're talking of a completely different price target...

cheers,
A

 

[podperson]

I like plugin architectures when done well, so it suits me.

 

[jenn109]

GPU versus CPU renders

This is a great discussion. I really like Cheetah's renderer. I can still remember the first render that I did in Cheetah of a Silo model. I was very happy with the speed and simplicity of the rendering set-up. The best part of the GPU unbiased renders is the entire image emerges, so you don't have to wait to see the square containing that critical detail rendered. What I don't like is the speed hit the iMac takes when you start an Octane render. I imagine the users with multiple graphics cards don't have to suffer the slowdown. Cheetah is much more productive to use when rendering.


jenn109 (Mike)

 

[apostleofzion]

currently there is mostly cartoony or technical game-related stuff shown on this forum, with luke the most important composer of realistic scenes is gone with no one to replace him, because it is simply too difficult for not artistic geniuses within this app, whereas there is lots of realistic stuff in the galleries of other apps that don't require the amount of lighting-set-up-sophistication that is needed in cheetah.

- archie

Hi buddy,
Sorry about the off-topic comment.

I'm new to C3D. And i'm quite interested in realistic output.
If you do not mind can you share how you approach realism with C3D.

Or any links regarding this.

I have also seen other apps having realistic output.

Thanks.

keep on enjoying

 

[archie]

hi apostle,

cheetah is very suitable for stills; modeling, texturing and rendering can be done seamlessly and quickly and there are lots of examples in the gallery like those recent two.
normally you start with a plane for the surface and a hdri for the lighting, put your model in and render.

it is also possible to do quite convincing interiors in cheetah but this gets tricky.
a natural lighting with the skylight through the windows won't work, you may need a hdri for background, a distant pointlight with radius and 8 samples to emulate the sun and then maybe various area lights inside and outside for the desired effect.
cheetah's biased radiosity algorithm works poorly with emitters and low light so if you want shadows you need to prepare for huge render times.
example files with interior lighting setups in these two threads.
i have basically stopped doing interiors in cheetah because i don't like the fake approach.

exteriors like with terragen or vue are impossible with cheetah, but a shot of a building against the sky with an appropriate hdri is no problem.

when you do hires renders with hdris being part of the picture you need 100+ mb monster files and even those might appear blurry, but without volumetrics/haze i dunno how to set up a realistic horizon in cheetah.

cheers,
archie

 

[alvordr]

I don't find interiors all that hard. Indeed, the lighting is the most important piece, but once you get the hang of it, it's not that bad. It all depends on the mood of the scene.

Usually, all it takes is a directional light, or skylight, an area light in the window (if it's daytime), an HDRI, and possibly a point and/or area light inside.

 

[podperson]

Robert: are you serious?

Look at the edges and shadows in your renders, just for starters.

 

[alvordr]

Yes, I am serious, and I'm pleased with the results that I've gotten. I don't see any issue with the edges of the shadows. Can you elaborate?

EDIT: Actually, I can see what you're talking about now with the shadoes, but that has more to do with radiosity settings, in some cases, texturing, and/or light samples. Those are not insurmountable obstacles.

 

[archie]

I don't find interiors all that hard. Indeed, the lighting is the most important piece, but once you get the hang of it, it's not that bad. It all depends on the mood of the scene.

Usually, all it takes is a directional light, or skylight, an area light in the window (if it's daytime), an HDRI, and possibly a point and/or area light inside.

hi robert, thanks for providing your renders.
now i think compared with an unfair example from the octane forum (go there for credits) these precisely make my point about how difficult/impossible it is to do photorealistic interiors in cheetah.

with a physically based, unbiased renderer you set up a sunlight shining through the window and then simply wait a couple hours (depending on your graphics card) until you have a clean solution.

in cheetah you'll get ugly irradiance artifacts even with 10000 radiosity samples so you have to apply area fill lights killing the noise and the natural lighting as well.
now with luke being gone i see no one posting convincing complex interiors on the forum and that is for these reasons.

octane is a pc + nvidia thing, apple has just a few weeks ago made the move towards capable 5000 ati cards, so octane is left to nvidia 330 macbooks, dunno how far you can get with that.

i'm sure martin is aware and experimenting but given the 1 gb or less memory and other reasons he gave above i think a single, yet uncloned developer might not come up with an implementation before v 7.4 in december 2012.

so in the mean time mac users are left with blender and lux (not talking expensive solutions outside the cheetah price range here).
and once i have mastered those why should i not abandon cheetah ?

- archie

 

[apostleofzion]

@robert: Thanks for sharing the pics.

@archie:
Thanks for your info.The octane render pic posted is awesome.

1. I guess we have to experiment a lot on our own to get the best result.
And did luke come up with this level of output?

2. So the problem is the cheetah renderer needs to be tweaked a lot to get realistic output?

3. Yes i have also seen the latest macbook pros with only 512mb of nvidia gt330m. I guess apple wants more battery time. As martin has said about needing more than 512mb to get a decent output, best pro model fall flat. and C3D is only mac. Will Apple go for 1gb higher quality cards? i doubt it.

4. So archie how do you do your realistic renders from C3D?
You take the scene to Blender for render or other renderers?

5. The price point for C3D is highly affordable but i also see C3D does have its limitations. So i wouldnt mind if i can get a render plugin at a separate cost which can reach&do more than the current
C3D renderer. What are the suggestions?
Also any future updates for the renderer in the pipeline?

keep on enjoying

 

[archie]

1. I guess we have to experiment a lot on our own to get the best result.
And did luke come up with this level of output?

yes :smile:
and for luke bocchinelli's work look at the gallery on cheetah main site.

2. So the problem is the cheetah renderer needs to be tweaked a lot to get realistic output?

as i said above, stills are very easy, easier than in other apps.
once you have an interior with foreground, background, windows showing exterior, sunlight etc the tweaking starts, not so much of the renderer but of the additional fill lights (like a photographer in the studio with his softboxes).

4. So archie how do you do your realistic renders from C3D?
You take the scene to Blender for render or other renderers?

i tried the lightfake way as luke did but got tired and don't do any projects currently.
octane i cannot use because of my ati card which also crashes slg, and blender i don't really want to learn, that would be a real pain but rendering is supposed to be fun.

- archie

 

[podperson]

EDIT: Actually, I can see what you're talking about now with the shadoes, but that has more to do with radiosity settings, in some cases, texturing, and/or light samples. Those are not insurmountable obstacles.

They turn out to be remarkably annoying to surmount, as per Archie's posts. Personally, unless your time is worthless you're better off switching to a renderer that doesn't have these issues.

 

[sebastian]

Hey there, Interesting read so far... So this wish-thread isn't specifically about having GPU, but a better radiosity algrithm? I would definitly like that.

The Cheetah renderer seems very solid, but even though I didn't spend too much time trying, it seems remarkably tricky to get realistic looking low-noise results – without blasting the lighting up with an area light or similar tricks. I got used to thinkng that it was my fault by getting settings wrong or just tweaking the wrong values...

 

[apostleofzion]

They turn out to be remarkably annoying to surmount, as per Archie's posts. Personally, unless your time is worthless you're better off switching to a renderer that doesn't have these issues.

And what renderer would you use?

keep on enjoying

 

[apostleofzion]

@archie:

Again thanks for your feedback.

Luke bocchinelli, yup saw his work and then only bought C3D.
I stuck with bocchinelli part of the name dint really see the luke part.
dumb me

His output is quite nice. And some more people also have posted few impressive scenes. I should play out with renderer soon and see.

 

[SurfingAlien]

And what renderer would you use?

keep on enjoying

Hi!

if your goal is pure photorealism then podperson is right and you should look at any unbiased+physically based renderer out there. there are many options for any price target: free (es. blender+luxrender) - low to mid price (es. octane, thea) - mid to high (es. maxwell).
Vray and Modo have great engines too (looking at their galleries) but I'm afraid their approach is a little more tricky (with luxrender and octane you can get photorealistic outputs almost "out of the box", for the others I can't talk because I have a very poor experience)

that said, I still think Cheetah does have a very good render engine + it's very easy to learn/tweak. Also, as a blender (newbie) user, I have to say I see no reason for abandoning cheetah for blender: of course Bl is powerful and has some (many?) features C3D still misses but there are too many things you can do easily and quicly in Cheetah.
not to mention the community :smile:

just my 2c - cheers,
Alessandro