![]() The scene was built using 3 light sources and 2 objects (one was a box that i masked to make the logo, and one object was 3d text)įrom my understanding is there are Octane materials and objects? but the scene still looked rough!)įrom my understanding, Octane is suppose to be almost 50% faster, and by using the GPU, is suppose to look even better. Octane renderer took 4-5 seconds a frame to render and looked like crap (it's the demo, so I know there's a watermark. Standard renderer took 3-4 seconds a frame and looked pretty good. Physical renderer took 37 seconds a frame and looked the best (left settings at default/medium) My machine is a beast, and I'm sure it's my settings, but I went back to compare a few different render modes and here are my findings: My specs are: i7-7700HQ 16GB dual-channel onboard memory (DDR4, 2400MHz) NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1060 (6GB GDDR5 VRAM) 1TB SSD (PCIe M.2) Mobile Intel® PCHM 100-series chipset, HM175 Windows 10 The render time using Standard Render took about 2-3 hours. I have a light above and slightly angled on the logo, so as the logo spins, so does the shadow. The logo rotates 360 degrees over 356 frames. I'm building a very basic 3D logo animation for a client. I'm 100% certain the issue is with my ignorance haha. So what I'm writing in about is Render times and Render Quality. I come from a 2D background, so the "Environment makes your 3D object, more than object makes the object" concept, is still something I'm wrapping my head around. Hi guys/gals, I'm very new (like 2nd week in) to 3D animation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |