Shawn Miller
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Walter Soyka] “Chris, on a separate topic entirely, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Octane sometime. I’m very intrigued, but I haven’t tried it yet. How much render improvement are you seeing? Could I build an Octane monster with as many GPUs as I could fit in the case, or an Octane render farm with a couple PCs and homogenous CPUs? How’s the workflow?”
Hey Walter,
I’m coming into this thread really late (and butting into your question to Chris, sorry), but, have you seen the demonstrations of Octane using multiple GPUs? Note the viewport performance… unreal. The answer to both of your questions is yes. Ocatane will utilize as many Cuda cores as you can stuff into a case, and you can build a render farm for additional render nodes. BTW, it will also run on Amazon…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dY-HgxWO9Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhqf1n2xq80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5aD7CD_BUAs I noted in another thread, one of the big advantages of Octane is the speed at which you can make design choices because of the viewport performance. I don’t think I mentioned how much faster the final gathering render is though. If you haven’t already, I think you should really download and try it for yourself… then try Arnold. I would be curious to know what you think. 🙂
Shawn
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.
-
[Bret Williams] ” I found that accessing the sub frame mode was a complete PIA though and I’ll take X’s method any day.”
It’s just two clicks though (right click on the time ruler and select audio units)…
Shawn
-
[David Lawrence] “[Shawn Miller] “As David Lawrence already pointed out, Premiere Pro will also edit down to the sample level.”
I’ll add that with VST/AU plugins, flexible bussing, clip and track level automation, the ability to make tracks as big as and as many you want, Premiere Pro is actually a very robust DAW for 80-90% of what I need everyday. Is it a substitute for ProTools or a full-fledged DAW? Of course not. But anyone saying a well designed NLE can’t also share the functionality of a DAW doesn’t know what they don’t know.”
Very true, that’s one of the reasons I hope that Vegas comes to the Mac someday. I think a lot of people would like it, especially those who are fond of building up complex audio mixes for video.
Shawn
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “[David Roth Weiss] “For the record, audition can edit down to the sample rate of 1/48000th of a frame”
Sure. We’ll also just ignore that comparing an NLE with a DAW is nonsense to begin with. Or that there’s always Logic that will go down to the sample as well. But I wouldn’t want to rain on your crusade, so never mind… 😀
– RK”
As David Lawrence already pointed out, Premiere Pro will also edit down to the sample level.
Shawn
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[Shawn Miller] “Absolutely! I’ve been using Audition since it was Cool Edit Pro v1. I rarely complete a project without touching Audition at some point. :-)”
Since you guys keep talking about Audition, how does its audio repair tools compare to something like iZotope’s RX 5Audio Editor?
-Andrew”
I haven’t used iZotope’s repair tools, so I can’t really compare them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the RX 5 Audio Editor was more sophisticated though, those guys just make magic. I’ve always preferred their compression and EQ tools.
Shawn
-
[David Roth Weiss] “[Shawn Miller] ”
Premiere pro has a bussing structure. You can create submix channels (mono stereo and 5.1) and send any (or multiple) track output(s) to any submix. You can also assign any submix to any other (or multiple) submix channel(s). The same is true for Sony Vegas.”And, don’t forget about Adobe Audition, a very capable app that’s fully integrated with Premiere, which has very sophisticated busing and a plethora of other very sophisticated audio editing and processing tools.”
Absolutely! I’ve been using Audition since it was Cool Edit Pro v1. I rarely complete a project without touching Audition at some point. 🙂
Shawn
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “I know PPro has a track mixer, so I guess you can link a couple of tracks and control them together. Not bussing, per se, but it may help get the job done.”
Premiere pro has a bussing structure. You can create submix channels (mono stereo and 5.1) and send any (or multiple) track output(s) to any submix. You can also assign any submix to any other (or multiple) submix channel(s). The same is true for Sony Vegas.
Shawn
-
[Alan Lacey] ” Is Shake part of Fusion’s past?”
Nope, two completely different design and development teams. Although, I believe they both appeared around the same time… 96 or 97, I think?
Shawn
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Shawn Miller] “I didn’t really notice it before, but the more I use Octane or Arnold in C4D, the less patience I have for look development in AE. Even Fusion’s viewport performance seems sluggish by comparison.”
Shawn, would you mind to elaborating on look dev in C4D/Octane/Arnold? I’d love to hear about how you’re using it, and what benefits/limitations you see.”
Hey Walter, I started using Octane earlier this year after working through a particularly challenging scene in C4D. I really loved the look I was getting out of the Physical Render with global illumination, but I didn’t love discovering that I had GI flickering after test renders. I also really hated going through the proccess of, change parameter, render, change parameter, render, repeat until satisfied. So, I downloaded Octane, spent a few days learning the lighting and shading system, and then re-textured and re-lit the scene. Not only did I cut test renders down by 75% (only rendering to see motion blur), I discovered that it was much faster and easier to see how changes to my lights and shaders affected the look of the piece I was working on in (near) real time. Best of all, no GI flicker. If Octane can’t resolve ray bounces with the number of samples you give it, it displays errors as noise. So, your biggest decisions when setting up Octane are; how much time (or samples) you want to give it, and how much noise you can live with.
Fast forward a few months, I was happily working away in Octane when I read the announcement that Arnold had been released for C4D. I had heard great things about it, so I downloaded the trial, learned the basics of the lighting and shader system and gave it a try. I was hooked in a day. Octane is a fantatic renderer that runs like a dream on relatively inexpensive nVidia GPUs, but there’s just something about the renders I get out of Arnold, something I can’t quite put my finger on. Arnold’s interactive viewport is a little slower than Octane’s, but (IMO) Arnold’s shader, camera and lighting systems seem more intuitive and a bit more mature. Arnold is also a little more stable on my system.
My biggest surprise working with these renderers, is speed of iteration. With both applications, I can work side by side with visual reference, while refining the look of the scene as I go. I don’t think about how much time the final render is going to cost me, becuase I can see how long it takes to render things like transparency or subsurface scattering as I’m working. Again, I don’t have to change something, wait six minutes, change something wait three minutes – I just work, and I get a feel for how expensive my changes are as I go (did I mention that GI flicker is a thing of the past). I should also mention that motion blur doesn’t add very much time to the final render with either application… I’m still trying to wrap my head around that.
Of course, both renderes also have their downsides. Octane is fantastic, but it’s not as stable or as intuitive as the Physical Renderer. It also has some issues rendering caustics, and the viewport stalls once in a while. When using Arnold, I find that the displacement node isn’t nearly as prectictable as it is in C4Ds material system. I also dislike that fresnel isn’t supported on the reflective channel. There are other issues with Octane and Arnold, but I haven’t found any show stoppers yet.
To sum things up, the strengths of both renderes for me are; speed of iteration due to viewport previews, more accurate lighting (than PR), faster rendering of motion blur and no GI flicker. The only real drawback IMO is the less intuitive material/shader systems compared to C4D.
As a quick example, here’s something I was working on a few days ago. I went from no shaders, to look A, to look B in about an hour – I rendered a few test frames so I could evaluate motion blur. Otherwise, I just concentrated on refining the shaders and the lighting. I’m obviously not finished, but I think this would have taken me more like two hours if I had to render every 10 or fiften minutes, and then tweak GI parameters to avoid flickering.
Lastly, I really like both of these renderers. But I find that I gravitate toward Octane for speed, and Arnold for beauty. I still like C4D’s built in render engines, but I’ve been using them less and less.
Shawn
-
[Walter Soyka] “[James Culbertson] “I’ve been using AE for 20 years and at this point I rarely pay attention to speed enhancements. Everything renders so fast I don’t really care. I do have a MacCylinder though.”
I don’t really care about final render speed, either. Computer time is cheap.
I do care quite a bit about interactive render speed. Artist time is valuable, and every… little… delay… while… you’re… iterating… a… design… is… maddening… and… kills… creativity.
Performance is a creative feature.”
Exactly! Along that line, I often wonder what happened to Octane for AE.
I didn’t really notice it before, but the more I use Octane or Arnold in C4D, the less patience I have for look development in AE. Even Fusion’s viewport performance seems sluggish by comparison.
I’m really hoping that Adobe and Blackmagic have something special brewing in the lab.
Shawn
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.
