-
standard vs Physical render
Hello,
I have investigating about if using physical render or not. In maxon help says is really good for calculating post effects such as motion blur. However I wonder why doing motion blur in Cinema, when you could do it in Nuke or AE.
Is there any other advantage for Physical?? is really faster?? the GI works well in animation?
Many thanks
-
4 Replies
-
The main reason to do motion blur in 3D is if you have multiple effects that could conflict if you try to do them in post — like motion blur and depth of field.
Here’s a good introduction to the physical renderer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjyiKN3jSkI
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Hi Adam thanks so much for this useful video.
The only thing i wonder, if the GI works better in Physical. I heard in Greyscalegorilla that the Physical GI works better in animation. In cinema 4D help says it is the same. This means is there no way to do properly GI with animation?
Many thanks
-
It’s possible to use standard GI for animation. The only thing is that it can be slow because the whole scene has to be cached before rendering can start. This isn’t so bad if the only thing that’s animated is the camera, but the setting for full animation is quite slow.
-
I see, but you are talking about the stardard GI right?? I meant the physical one, which I have not seen any option for full animation. The full animation one, I thought in the end nobody use it due it is almost impossible to hit deadlines . I usually do simulated radiosity .
Many thanks
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up