Blender Cycles vs Octane | No Commentary Part 1 or 2

Blender Cycles vs Octane | No Commentary Part 1 or 2
This is part 1 of 2 comparing Cycles to Octane. Part 2 of 2 will have a detail comparison of the two render engines.
How to install Blender Octane Free Tier
• Installing Blender Oct...
Download Blender (free tier)
www.otoy.com
Support Ambocc 3D
Paypal Donation - www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...
Gumroad Store - ambocc3d.gumroad.com/
SynchedIn Affiliate - synchedin.com/id/Ambocc3D
Blender 3D
Blender is the free and open source 3D creation suite. It supports the entirety of the 3D pipeline-modeling, rigging, animation, simulation, rendering, compositing and motion tracking, even video editing and game creation. Advanced users employ Blender’s API for Python scripting to customize the application and write specialized tools; often these are included in Blender’s future releases. Blender is well suited to individuals and small studios who benefit from its unified pipeline and responsive development process.
Octane Render
OctaneRender® is the world’s first and fastest unbiased, spectrally correct GPU render engine, delivering quality and speed unrivaled by any production renderer on the market.
OTOY® is proud to advance state of the art graphics technologies with groundbreaking machine learning optimizations, out-of-core geometry support, massive 10-100x speed gains in the scene graph, and RTX raytracing GPU hardware acceleration.
---
www.ambocc.com
---
#Cycles #blender3d #octanerender

[@ambocc]

Part 2 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqSsh5SVgcaAibs

[@foliumcore]

They both look very similar as they're all modern day path tracers. The biggest difference is that octane is a spectral renderer and handles colors as a gaussian spectrum instead of RGB and can handle caustics (they have a photon tracing kernel unlike cycles), dispersion, scattering better and more realistically.

[@ambocc]

Good analysis.

[@chlbrn]

Cycles is good enough and for surfaces with no subsurface scattering and caustics or iridescent, Cycles is good to go for animations, however, though I am no character artist, but I recently made 2 female character and they look way better in Octane than in Cycles and I spent less time setting up their skin in Octane, so I really want to go with Octane, but I think there are more assets compatible with Cycles and many materials are hard to convert to Octane material. BTW, I just asked my wife to watch this vid who has zero experience in CGI and she said that the difference was minor and almost unnoticeable but she prefered Octane's result.

[@ambocc]

100% agree, and I will talk more about in my commentary video. Thanks.

[@quartzHUN]

Check it at 1:30 the dashboard is completely blown out at Octane.

[@chlbrn]

@@quartzHUN I am not defending Octane but this could possibly be caused by the wrong texture in emission channel or wrong alpha texture since the speedometer looks fine.

[@tasmansea1620]

very cool, lots of work I assume. What's the display transform (tone mapper) you are using here?

[@ambocc]

Thanks, the tone mapper response type was set to sRGB for Octane with color management view transform set to raw. Cycles used it's default standard view transform. I try to keep it apples to apples, but I might have missed a setting here or there. It's also using the same compositing node for the light flares.

[@tasmansea1620]

@@ambocc thanks for clarifying - looks like you did keep apples to apples indeed. surprised how similar both look - with octane having the edge to my eyes

[@ambocc]

@@tasmansea1620 yes, unfortunately, KZbin compression killed a lot of the details. For some of the still camera shots, you can see more define details in the octane render. I’ll discuss it more in my next commentary video.

[@EugeniaLoli]

Both good, but you need to export with a higher dynamic range profile, like AgX. I think AgX is available both for C4D and Blender. The lights were all blown out you see, with both renderers, but AgX would help with that (developed by the same person who did Filmic for Blender, but AgX is miles ahead).

[@ambocc]

Interesting, I never heard of AgX, I will definitely take a look.

[@ChaosOver]

Why not going with the industry standard ACES?

[@EugeniaLoli]

@@ChaosOver If you do a youtube search to see Aces vs AGX, you will find out why. Aces does not maintain the dynamic range.

[@ChaosOver]

@@EugeniaLoli Thanks. I watched some videos, only to figure out that most people have no idea what they are talking about. :D The all compared images with output device transform (ODT) on them - and judging these images, like side-by-side in a viewer which is total nonsense. But maybe you can tell me how the dynamic range is better with AGX? ACES can hold 30 stops and has an organic hue shift. ACES is the industry standard and you will not have any trouble with exchanging data - either with other programs nor other people and pipelines. Thats a huge benefit. So i would really like to know what AGX can really do. But it seams to be impossible to find good information on that. I couldnt even find a scientific paper.

[@foliumcore]

@@ChaosOver There is an misconception with ACES, ACES is not the system that "exchanges data", that's OCIO. AgX is also an OCIO configuration meaning it does hold the same advantages. As for dynamic range, ACES appears to have more but only in it's gamut because it is commonly used with AP1 primaries like AcesCG, which has a larger gamut than what AgX uses, which is Linear srgb/Rec 709. Both are linear gamma, but acescg has more gamut. The "dynamic range" would the same if the beauty is exported as 16 bit exrs. The difference lies in the tonemapping, which is where large color spaces are converted to display (usually srgb). the Acescg -> srgb display tonemapping is what is known as "filmic", whilst AgX is linear srgb -> srgb display. In exrs, values can be above 1 or under 0, or 0-255, but the display should be clamped to be within 0-255 without losing all the data, which is what tonemapping does. AgX's tonemapping algorithm is better in that it seems to retain more detail, as well as reduce color shifts, there are many comparison videos. Both are acceptable workflows, with AgX being very similar to the original "linear workflow" before aces was popularised. Depending on if you are a freelancer, or a studio artist, you can choose both. Most studios already use OCIO with ACES though.

[@robsonhenrique4346]

I wanted to test Octane render in cinema 4d 2024 in Maya in 3ds Max but the plugin is dead, I couldn't find the download anywhere

[@pavel_kazakov]

Octane, it seems to me, has a little more contrast, not significantly, but still more. therefore it seems more realistic. I think if you add contrast to the cycles, the image will be absolutely the same, it will not be possible to distinguish.

[@Ericaandmac]

cycles look less contrasty and more dusty so it feel more like real camera for my perspective. Cycles has more variation on surfaces which gives more gradient and irregularity as well. So in this comparison cycles seem better. Just visually talking but probably its not fair to compare like this because light densities and colors seem slightly different that may cause these changes in results, to have proper comparison, someone should tweak all light density and material colors to matfh fully...

[@thelemetric]

you really did a good job matching the two renderers. I gave up on octane some time ago. gave it a fair chance for a couple of years but with so many caveats and oddities, overpromising trailers, missing their own version deadlines, crashes and errors, and jump to subscription...no way I am touching anything from otoy. eevee/cycles combo workflow wise is years beyond octane tbh. the octane plugin just feels super clunky in comparision. fwiw new blender has Agx colour management. its step up from filmic. also it seems the denoiser is obliterating the microdetails in the texturing, pretty sure that can be tweaked. octane renders beautiful images but its not worth the downsides. the output quality nowadays has become pretty standard. spectral rendering still seems MIA in cycles, that is the only upside for octane I can think of...

[@ambocc]

Thanks, as close as they are, I still give the edge to Octane and for my clients, I can justify the cost. Thanks for commenting, I do see your point.

[@TheFrenchCizzle]

Wich one is the faster?

[@ambocc]

LOL... Currently, Cycles due to how it process transforms between frames, but the developer is working on optimizing the Octane performance as we speak.

[@enigmawstudios4130]

The difference is negligible. Easily tweaked to match. I'm actually more interested in the world you created. Would like to see that story developed

[@ambocc]

Thank you. Still a WIP, but much more coming.

[@itchytastyurr]

bubblegum crisis vibe

[@ambocc]

Inspired heavily by that series.

[@robsonhenrique4346]

Octane has something different about him and much more realistic things

[@3duConstantino]

Octane is better but its a pain to transfer the materials and you need to learn to texture again.

[@ambocc]

They've updated the material converter. It should work if it is a simple PBR material. Texture baking is planned too, but no timeline for it unfortunately.

[@wonkaytry]

Just go fasteerrrrr

[@rendericeib4513]

same quality on this take

[@chiragmeena7520]

Cycle has good motion blurr

[@senseiqosimov]

My opinion Cylcles more realistic

[@Andredy89]

I think this scene is bad for such kind of comparing bcs its graphics level is way closer to a videogame than to smth real. You will get the same Visual result in Godot or Unity (game engines with render time like 0.016s per frame))))

[@Ren_Tutu]

Octane is better.

[@arielfiorano]

octane is way better

[@legourou]

octane , definitely octane