We switched from Vray to Arnold 4 years ago at our studio, and it's true. Arnold looks real. The complexity of the shaders we're able to build is great for everyday work, our renders look photorealistic (use ACES workflow), and being able to scale up with GPUs helped save us a lot of money while still doing lookdev on CPU workstations.
I'm 3ds Max user and I switched to Arnold lately I dropped V-Ray/Corona/FStorm for Arnold It's the best render engine imo yes it's slow but at the same time it's the most accurate render engine, also it has the best SSS & hair.
lol this comment never aged not even a sec, let's say you were right because they have courses for it well because they think it's the best regardless if they have courses for it or not lol.
used to use 3Ds max and Vray + Corona (still do at work) But switched to Maya and Arnold for personal projects, and I am really loving the look it puts out, plus it has ACES and all the render passes i could ever need, for complex compositing, absolutely love it.
Plus you learn arnold, you learn it for good. You can use your knowledge on MAYA or Katana if you wish. That's why a standard production render is so important.
I just need the Arnold's RenderView and light + aov managers in Houdini and I'll be completely happy ;) I think it's one of the best engines out there with great looking images, similar to Renderman in terms of quality.
I highly agree. Arnold is my favorite renderer. I love it so much. Bro can you please make tutorial about how to render vfx in houdini using arnold? Please. I love your videos so much.
Hopefully arnolds GPU rendering gets better because it currently lacks a lot of polish the GPU render has. However I do think Arnold hair and skin looks much better others
You two are the smart ones, aren’tcha? I am totally entitled to criticize the products I am paying for. If a typo bothers you guys, you should know I am not selling my comments, his tutorials though are products, that I bought, both of them in fact, and I want my money back. If I wanted to be harsh on him I would say this was a total waste of time since his so called tutorial is an audiobook of Arnold documentation, with bad pronunciations. Instead I gave him credit for his improvement, i have also kept the useless tutorial just to support him.
It seems like Arnold for Maya and Arnold for C4D are working differently. The difference can be easily noticed while lighting interior scene in Maya, and in C4D. Who else think that ?
I agree with you, but I think Arnold has limits with caustic lights and tell me if I'm wrong. Practically simulating the reflections effect of a swimming pool or the sea is impossible, it seems that the only way is to add a texture to the light.
Hello, So you went with Cpu for rendering? I am torn between 5600x + Rtx 3060 Ti + Rtx 3090 + Redshift / versus / Zen 4 (16 or 24 core) + Arnold. Can You please give me a hint?
Same here haha i think those of us who have fallen into the hype of "everything Apple" now suffer because we simply can't enjoy anything GPU. Thanks to Apple for f*cking it up with Nvidia. Corona is superb though, easy to learn, fast, quite realistic. Just not enough tutorials on Corona + Cinema 4D and not that many pre-fab 3D models that are textured with Corona materials
@@badcapybara So sorry about the Mac. I currently use Corona and it's (for now) my best. Mograph Plus has a comprehensive tutorial on Corona. Though, I agree with you about the material part. There aren't enough to work with out there (tutorials etc). The most challenging is organic materials.
You have Apple to thank for that for abandoning nVidia. You can use Arnold on a Mac, CPU only. Anold GPU is built on nVidia's CUDA / Optix. No GPU render on the market currently has production quality Apple's Metal based render engine. Octane is getting there, so does Redshift. Time will tell. Hopefully with new NAVI cards from AMD in late October things shift and Mac GPU performance will be better or closer to nVidia.
@@BakaOctopus very true about vdb support. Though Corona will come around soon. I think it'll be in the next upgrade. Just as Corona 6 now has a make-shift cloud
Still looking forward to your review of V-Ray 5 for C4D. I'm kind of curious why we don't actually hear much from users about the new V-Ray version. Is it that the user base has all but migrated to a different render engine following Chaos Groups negligence of the C4D users (before V-Ray 5 that is)? Or are there some glaring issues with the new version I didn't hear about....
Short Summary, Same old issues. Plus lack of complexity. I am still learning 3d world. But as I move ahead vray seems to provide less. And I therefore seem to be moving on too
You didn't consider the price, it's by far the most expensive one you can get for cinema. Everyone knows it's the most feature packed, it's one of the oldest render engine! But you didn't not take things into account for the fact that octane and redshift are cheaper and faster, considering redshift is presented on your face when you buy cinema... I've been using all this render engines for some time, and honestly I just kinda felt using the physical render for old time sake, I kinda got bored over octane's overused bloom, so ig my go to is vanilla c4d
This is true ... But I couldn't handle how Octane is always part of this comparisons. Octane is by far the worst engine. I worked till a year ago on a Daily basis in my old Studio with it. It was a nightmare. A lot of features were missing, buggy as hell. Maybe it got better .. but Redshift and Arnold are the best.
@@PatrickGarus yeah redshift is nice in a way, it's "almost" production ready, it's a bit hard to achieve photorealism compare to arnold, has some missing features, and I kinda hate the fact that you need buckets in the render view to see the final output, but It's blazing fast, comparing the two hardware wise, you can get faster results in Arnold if you did have the hardware that redshift needs in the first place. Octane can be nice if you know how to tame it though xD
I'm sorry to say so but I have recently upload Arnold 7 (try version) and I have experienced many crashes during my attempt to follow your beautiful tutorials. I wonder if Arnold 6 is more stable. I do not think I have an issue with my hardware because it is quite ok (Ryden 5950X - RTX 3080ti - 64 GB ram) ... mainly it happens during the Node workflow and I have a very long BugReport.txt . Honestly the amount of crashes is so important that I feel a bit discouraged. Anybody else had this issue? Apart from that your tutorials are great and you do have outstanding teaching skills.
Thanks a lot. I wanted to ask you an opinion. I used to work to present my design idea (I'm an architect) with vray 3.7. Now I got curious about Arnold but several reviews pointed out how Vray 5 is actually more suitable for architect. In your opinion Arnold could be as good if not even better than vray specifically for an architectural job? Thanks 😀
@@msganga1974 Sorry I don't know exactly, I don't have any experience with other render engines except for Arnold since it can work with integrated mac graphics. I think as long as you learn the tool and how to use it right it doesn't matter if it is preferred for architect work or not. During their course there are some room scenes that look absolutely real just with some adjusted Arnold lights. The presenter in the course says Arnold is great for being a physically accurate render engine which can offer you a great looking scene and it's quite easy to adjust. The best option would be to try this engine since I guess the knowledge from learning Vray still can be applied to Arnold as well so the learning curve must be quite easy for you.
Thank you so much! I will definitely try it 😀... Actually I quite like all the sampling explained in the mograph lessons because they make you aware about what you are actually doing while in Vray sometimes I felt like I was guessing a little 😬
I consider misleading the assumption that Arnold use "friendly" CPU and GPU renderings . First of all it would be amazing only if Arnold was capable to use both of them simultaneously otherwise it is just a game to check which one works better. Secondly GPU rendering requires several process like the GPU cache population in order to not wait several minutes before seeing anything. Third point you do not have the same Sampling control . Vray 5 is a reference about this point. Indeed you can use CPU and GPU together. In my modest view Arnold should move to the same direction .
Hi thank you for your helpful video, I have a problem with my Graphic card RTX 3080 the Arnold render doesn't recognize it, do you have any solutions? Thanks in advance.
How to render alpha transparent background in Cinema 4d with Arnold renderer.... I tried everything but nothing working for me.... Can u plz help me to get transparent background with arnold in cinema 4d. ??? It always tender with black background even after Alpha channel ticked.... Even tried in all formats like png, exr... But nothing working...😢😢😢😢😢
Hi, i have a question to arnold. Did an update lately and now i can´t change the device in the renderer settings / system...Can someone help me with this? thank you!
If you're using Houdini, try deleting the ".idx" files in Houdini's Presets folder. That can cause a ROP to be in an incorrect state (just came up last week on the email thread).
@@tjseries3057 that is true. But the fact is that I need 6 to 8 hours with a very popular one button renderer for the same scene. I am using physical materials to do these comparisons and not being bias at all. In a production environment you can't go with the most cool solution, but the fastest and flexible option. I was also told, oh it is too slow, but you need to understand how some things work. Once you do, then you unlock a powerful renderer. True that a 1 button solution sounds amazing but at least in production it is often a pain in the ass. I often have the famous error message "you need to simplify your scene" which is unacceptable for a production renderer.
I use Arnold for 3ds Max and after a deep deep dig in let me tell you If you are a V-Ray or Corona user or anything else specially GPU render engines please don't waste your time just switch to Arnold.
how tf can hobbyists afford both c4d AND a decent render engine. I just got c4d and I don't even know if I can use my gpu to render within c4d without the use of a 3rd party program
You can, don't worry. And, from what I now, Arnold is based in quasi-montecarlo formula, which you also get on cinema 4D as an option on the global illumination panel of the render settings. If it's hobby, you'll be fine with the cinema 4D renger engine.
Slower than other renders, but it's more responsive since it doesn't rely on BVH trees for preprocessing. Solid Angle founder Marcos Fajardo explained his competitors are trying to deliver the fastest renderer possible, but in the end the most photorealistic images made with the most flexible renderer are what get noticed and sell work. His team opts for the most realistic, most expensive calculations if the quality bump is noticeable. It also doesn't crawl to a halt with high geometry scenes.
Do you think Arnold makes better and smoother results in architecture renderings? I am using corona, and i am not always happy, but i think its about my skills. ;)
I worked one-two years with corona, and now since a few months with arnold. And I must admit, that corona is more straight forward to learn, more intuitive, but arnold delivers by far the better results with a quicker rendertime. Also arnold has tons features, and corona doesn‘t. Corona is great to create a quick render with a nice result, but if you‘re after photorealism, then arnold is your choice.
And BTW Arnold is definitely the best engine for production, using GPU for look-dev and cpu for rendering is a huge advantage, seems like there’s absolutely no competitor for it. And I like to add that if you use a parallel software like Houdini, Arnold settings and shaders are transferable and the workflow is identical.
Same here, we actually switched to Houdini once we saw how perfectly it works with Arnold's node based shaders, like a lock and key. I highly recommend using Arnold Operators for auto-assigning materials based off object names. It saves us like 10 hours a week easily.
I find Arnold very interesting and exciting but I'm not really happy about the extremely congested way to approach an essential procedure like Denoiser. Arnold is not great in reducing the amount of noise especially when we deal with complicated interior. This is why denoise procedure is mandatory. The fact you cannot use ACES in Picture view means the workflow to achieve the final picture is really complicated. I hope Arnold will improve this part because at the moment is not consistent with the principle of making the user at the centre of their attention.
Actually can can use Aces in the picture viewer..... It's can find the setting to bake in the aces color space in the color management render settings or the preference browser
Great video ! I used to work with arnold, and it renders everything, no matter how much the polycount is. And nice quality. But.... it is multiple times slower than other renderers like Corona and especially Redshift. You didnt highlighted enough, that its not just slower, its 10times slower :D . And as a monodir path tracer its a really poor choice for interiors... So arnold is a no-go for archviz.
completely agree. last year I started using arnold for smaller projects and is shockingly slow at final render. Also that Cinema has never had a as good of an Arch vis solution as max/vray which is too bad bc the max interface is by far the worst.
Buddy, i am shocked to read your comment because i bought it yesterday, but is the final result nice? Because for me important is the quality of the final result, i don`t interested in render times. ;)
Virtually ever render engine and 3D program has tones of customization to balance quality and render times. Are you sure its the render engine and only render engine that is the problem?
Ryzen 7 is a good starting point for enthusiast rendering. Freelance, go with 16 core Threadripper. Professional, do 32 Threadripper cores. Minimum RAM should be 64GB when you're starting out. You may need 128GB once you start working with smoke, fire, water. A great GPU to get is the older 2080Ti. It doesn't emit as much heat as current Ampere cards and is more stable. Plus it'll render 75% of your Arnold scenes natively. Scenes that don't fit can have their texture resolution globally reduced (easy Render Settings value). Textures use a lot of VRAM.
01: Not really, Octane for example is exact same, it's unbiased and provide physically accurate ( realistic ) results, something like Redshift ( renderer based on Arnold I think ) on another hand might look more fake because it's pretty much raw without any postfx or tonemapping out of the box + it's highly biased ( can be used in Unbiased mode but then it becomes one of the slowest GPU renderers close to Arnold itself ) . 03: Features.. V-Ray 5 blows out of the water any renderer in terms of Features and actually it might be the overall best renderer out there, it has tons of features, CPU, GPU & Hybrid rendering, AOV's, one of the best feature-packed IPR's w/ instant feedback, Cryptomatte, Built-In advanced postfx/compositor etc and most importantly it's fairly fast in unbiased mode ( same as Octane for GPU, fastest CPU renderer ). For example what I dislike about Arnold is that it's super slow not only in terms of rendering but even the IPR is "dogshit", I press "Play" icon and have to wait for it to load single HDR and 5K poly model for like half minute, also there's no features for stylized lighting for example I can't exclude "A" object from "B" light so the light has no effect on certain objects, using Arnold I would have to render multiple images and then composite the lighting in Photoshop just like studio photographers do. Idk but Arnold will need like 5-10 more years till it gets even close to current Octane or V-Ray. The only reason to use Arnold is probably for stability and poly/scene optimization, nothing else. Studios ofcourse has farms etc so they don't really care about speed but for a regular dude who has for example 16-64GB RAM, Ryzen 5-9 and single or two GTX/RTX GPU Arnold is simply not an option.
Yeah, have fun not being able to render out motion blur/dof, cause it'll take impossibly long to clean, or incredibly expensive. And still no tone mapping support in 2020? Best my ass.
@@yobooboy5591 how about a simple tonemap job like highlight compression? You know, the thing that literally any other renderer can do? Maybe now magic bullet look in R23 can help, but it still won't make it render any faster.
@@SlobboVideo you do realize that arnold in c4d has full filmic tone mapping, and a more basic reinhard tone mapper right? Your ass is showing. Also on top of having the best tone mapper in a render engine....it has full built in aces support. Sorry but go educate yourself m8.
Nope, they use the same Core. The only difference is in the plugins that translate your 3D scene to "Arnold Scene Source" files that are stored in a temp folder and then opened with Kick.exe
Most realistic??? Are you kidding me?? It is not a spectral renderer with caustics (2:53 that's realistic?? Where are the real caustics?) and Bidirection Path Tracing and Metropolis Light Transport and... Or should I quote directly from their web site: "'Hard' caustics from small but bright light sources (e.g., a spot light through a cognac glass) are not currently possible. " and "Arnold uses simple, uni-directional path tracing. Rays start at the camera, not at the lights. Arnold does not use bi-directional path tracing (nor any other bi-directional technique, such as photon mapping, which fires rays from the lights). When using standard lights, like point lights and spot lights, which are idealized lights with zero area, i.e. point lights, it is simply impossible for Arnold's GI/reflection/refraction rays to hit the lights. Therefore, there are no caustics."
Dude, if your brain works like a math teacher and not an artist, than no wonder you are stuck. Humans are not calculators. We perceive things that we associated with reality. 500 years ago painters could make something feel more real than real life with paint and brushes and broad strokes. Why? Because they understood humans and did not try to make humans into calculators. I suggest you expand your view.
Arnold real best, but it's crush often with my mobile rtx2060 GPU render. Perhaps because memory not enough. Maybe you fix it someday. Thank you for you render anyway!
No, you cannot use Arnold’s GPU rendering as a reason why it’s “the best renderer for Cinema 4D”! That’s just a biased, subjective opinion based on little fact. Almost every other GPU renderer for C4D out there, is far quicker and less cumbersome than Arnold GPU. The other points you make are fairly valid, but the GPU one is definitely vastly exaggerated.
I love Arnold render and used it a lot these last years but I always faced to slow renders and/or noises issues. And redshift a way faster and extremely stable. More stable and maybe can handle more geometry and big numbers of lights as well. Maybe Arnold is a little bit more realistic as it’s unbiased but it’s a very small difference. Difficult to choose between the two and I think from time to come back to Arnold. But the last time I did it, Arnold crashed whereas redshift was able to handle the scene much more easily.
It just crashes too much. It is amazing and I love it, but when you really need to push it, it falls over, Arnold always feels so stable, so so stable.
Coronas final look blows anything out of the water imo it looks just right. redshift is a bit too clinical but makes up for that with speed. there is no real "best renderer" its a matter of taste, as there is no "best pizza"
@@Amorstopineed hard to judge, for me corona gets closer to that scandinavian feeling when looking at pure white interiors. i used vray for a really long time but once corona came around i never looked back. arnold is somewhere in between for me. if you like it use it, its as simple as that.
![[UNCUT] บอสพอล แผลงฤทธิ์ บอสพระ-นักร้อง ก. โดนแฉยับ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 21 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XKf6HeftoPI/mqdefault.jpg)
We switched from Vray to Arnold 4 years ago at our studio, and it's true. Arnold looks real. The complexity of the shaders we're able to build is great for everyday work, our renders look photorealistic (use ACES workflow), and being able to scale up with GPUs helped save us a lot of money while still doing lookdev on CPU workstations.
They are going to support ACES in 3dsMax too very soon 😀
I know the movies that use Arnold and i agree, I tried vray but something looks fake. Arnold is better i think.
I'm 3ds Max user and I switched to Arnold lately I dropped V-Ray/Corona/FStorm for Arnold It's the best render engine imo yes it's slow but at the same time it's the most accurate render engine, also it has the best SSS & hair.
Reason no 6, Because we have a course for it!
MographPlus has courses for a ton of different c4d render engines though
lol this comment never aged not even a sec, let's say you were right because they have courses for it well because they think it's the best regardless if they have courses for it or not lol.
For every popular render engine like vray, corona or redshift, there's always atleast one course available. What is even your point duh
@@nitishkalita1026 Jeez smartass, this video came out when they launched their course...
@@kartikeyabhalla6358 as if there was no course for other renderers until this video came out smh.
used to use 3Ds max and Vray + Corona (still do at work)
But switched to Maya and Arnold for personal projects, and I am really loving the look it puts out, plus it has ACES and all the render passes i could ever need, for complex compositing, absolutely love it.
100% agree! I ❤️ Arnold.
Chad Ashley approved!
Plus you learn arnold, you learn it for good. You can use your knowledge on MAYA or Katana if you wish. That's why a standard production render is so important.
Exactly
I just need the Arnold's RenderView and light + aov managers in Houdini and I'll be completely happy ;) I think it's one of the best engines out there with great looking images, similar to Renderman in terms of quality.
You can rely on it anytime, unless you're using GPU
Thank you so much, especially about the CPU/GPU, LEARNING CURVE, and hyper photorealism. You sold me
I highly agree. Arnold is my favorite renderer. I love it so much.
Bro can you please make tutorial about how to render vfx in houdini using arnold? Please. I love your videos so much.
Arnold is a really great render engine, i used a lot back back in the days but it's way slower than redshift or octane.
Hopefully arnolds GPU rendering gets better because it currently lacks a lot of polish the GPU render has. However I do think Arnold hair and skin looks much better others
@@Dog3D Не лучше Mantra)))
Have you tried it on rtx cards?
@@TREZER not really, i used Arnold befor rtx even existed
I like to use this moment and express my gratitude for pronouncing thebword “feature” correctly ... 🙏🏼
thebword
the b word
You two are the smart ones, aren’tcha?
I am totally entitled to criticize the products I am paying for. If a typo bothers you guys, you should know I am not selling my comments, his tutorials though are products, that I bought, both of them in fact, and I want my money back.
If I wanted to be harsh on him I would say this was a total waste of time since his so called tutorial is an audiobook of Arnold documentation, with bad pronunciations. Instead I gave him credit for his improvement, i have also kept the useless tutorial just to support him.
It seems like Arnold for Maya and Arnold for C4D are working differently. The difference can be easily noticed while lighting interior scene in Maya, and in C4D. Who else think that ?
I did not see that - the interface obviously is different, but the workflow looks identical to me.
Is very close similar... In maya is more stable and have few addtional funtions
I agree with you, but I think Arnold has limits with caustic lights and tell me if I'm wrong. Practically simulating the reflections effect of a swimming pool or the sea is impossible, it seems that the only way is to add a texture to the light.
Arnold is definitely a favorite of mine.
Hey, i bought it yesterday. I think the architecture results are really good, showing up in this video.
Is it available for Cinema 4d r19?
Hello, So you went with Cpu for rendering? I am torn between 5600x + Rtx 3060 Ti + Rtx 3090 + Redshift / versus / Zen 4 (16 or 24 core) + Arnold. Can You please give me a hint?
Arnold gpu crashes a lot, the cpu renderer is amazing. From my experience with 2 2080 Rex tis, Arnold gpu is not ready form production
Looking for a tutorial on how to add caustics in arnold ! Do you have one ? Thanks
Of course in C4D
One of the few things Arnold is missing but I’ll guess it comes. Think you need to fake it
PhoenicianC4D I know this is too late for me to reply you but I can see the caustics option in the advances setting inside the standard surface node
Arnold happens to be my favorite. (Runner up: Corona), But as I am on a Mac, have never used Redshift and Octane.
Same here haha i think those of us who have fallen into the hype of "everything Apple" now suffer because we simply can't enjoy anything GPU. Thanks to Apple for f*cking it up with Nvidia. Corona is superb though, easy to learn, fast, quite realistic. Just not enough tutorials on Corona + Cinema 4D and not that many pre-fab 3D models that are textured with Corona materials
@@badcapybara So sorry about the Mac. I currently use Corona and it's (for now) my best. Mograph Plus has a comprehensive tutorial on Corona. Though, I agree with you about the material part. There aren't enough to work with out there (tutorials etc). The most challenging is organic materials.
mac is not for professionals
I think the AOV in arnold is best than others!
Absolutely, just doing "Plus" merge nodes is so easy.
my fav is VRAY and arnold, Vray gives fast renders and Arnold is accurate I choose as per the needs
Why Vray Can not render Turbulence FD
I'm new to this... very helpful - thanks for your video :)
Already subbed ;)
I have an iMac Pro. Can I use Arnold? Seems like every renderer I see says, "not available for Mac". ???
Yes but only Arnold CPU
Consider using Corona Renderer for Cinema 4D on Mac. it's fast.
@@designcoyote1 Arnold is way better than corona especially vdb support
You have Apple to thank for that for abandoning nVidia. You can use Arnold on a Mac, CPU only. Anold GPU is built on nVidia's CUDA / Optix.
No GPU render on the market currently has production quality Apple's Metal based render engine. Octane is getting there, so does Redshift. Time will tell. Hopefully with new NAVI cards from AMD in late October things shift and Mac GPU performance will be better or closer to nVidia.
@@BakaOctopus very true about vdb support. Though Corona will come around soon. I think it'll be in the next upgrade. Just as Corona 6 now has a make-shift cloud
Will Arnold feature the hybrid GPU + CPU mode like Vray does? I'm just waiting for that and will be happy to switch!
Still looking forward to your review of V-Ray 5 for C4D. I'm kind of curious why we don't actually hear much from users about the new V-Ray version. Is it that the user base has all but migrated to a different render engine following Chaos Groups negligence of the C4D users (before V-Ray 5 that is)? Or are there some glaring issues with the new version I didn't hear about....
Short Summary, Same old issues. Plus lack of complexity. I am still learning 3d world. But as I move ahead vray seems to provide less. And I therefore seem to be moving on too
You didn't consider the price, it's by far the most expensive one you can get for cinema. Everyone knows it's the most feature packed, it's one of the oldest render engine! But you didn't not take things into account for the fact that octane and redshift are cheaper and faster, considering redshift is presented on your face when you buy cinema... I've been using all this render engines for some time, and honestly I just kinda felt using the physical render for old time sake, I kinda got bored over octane's overused bloom, so ig my go to is vanilla c4d
This is true ... But I couldn't handle how Octane is always part of this comparisons. Octane is by far the worst engine. I worked till a year ago on a Daily basis in my old Studio with it. It was a nightmare. A lot of features were missing, buggy as hell. Maybe it got better .. but Redshift and Arnold are the best.
@@PatrickGarus yeah redshift is nice in a way, it's "almost" production ready, it's a bit hard to achieve photorealism compare to arnold, has some missing features, and I kinda hate the fact that you need buckets in the render view to see the final output, but It's blazing fast, comparing the two hardware wise, you can get faster results in Arnold if you did have the hardware that redshift needs in the first place. Octane can be nice if you know how to tame it though xD
I bought Arnold yesterday, i hope it will make me happy.
Is there an explanation in this course for how to make texture water?
Turn off Diffuse on your shader. Only use Specular (no roughness) and Transmission (IOR 1.45 and slightly blue tinged white value).
I'm sorry to say so but I have recently upload Arnold 7 (try version) and I have experienced many crashes during my attempt to follow your beautiful tutorials. I wonder if Arnold 6 is more stable. I do not think I have an issue with my hardware because it is quite ok (Ryden 5950X - RTX 3080ti - 64 GB ram) ... mainly it happens during the Node workflow and I have a very long BugReport.txt . Honestly the amount of crashes is so important that I feel a bit discouraged. Anybody else had this issue? Apart from that your tutorials are great and you do have outstanding teaching skills.
Better to try older versions then. I’m halfway through their Arnold course and I didn’t have a single crash.
Thanks a lot. I wanted to ask you an opinion. I used to work to present my design idea (I'm an architect) with vray 3.7. Now I got curious about Arnold but several reviews pointed out how Vray 5 is actually more suitable for architect. In your opinion Arnold could be as good if not even better than vray specifically for an architectural job? Thanks 😀
@@msganga1974 Sorry I don't know exactly, I don't have any experience with other render engines except for Arnold since it can work with integrated mac graphics. I think as long as you learn the tool and how to use it right it doesn't matter if it is preferred for architect work or not. During their course there are some room scenes that look absolutely real just with some adjusted Arnold lights. The presenter in the course says Arnold is great for being a physically accurate render engine which can offer you a great looking scene and it's quite easy to adjust.
The best option would be to try this engine since I guess the knowledge from learning Vray still can be applied to Arnold as well so the learning curve must be quite easy for you.
Thank you so much! I will definitely try it 😀... Actually I quite like all the sampling explained in the mograph lessons because they make you aware about what you are actually doing while in Vray sometimes I felt like I was guessing a little 😬
I consider misleading the assumption that Arnold use "friendly" CPU and GPU renderings . First of all it would be amazing only if Arnold was capable to use both of them simultaneously otherwise it is just a game to check which one works better. Secondly GPU rendering requires several process like the GPU cache population in order to not wait several minutes before seeing anything. Third point you do not have the same Sampling control . Vray 5 is a reference about this point. Indeed you can use CPU and GPU together. In my modest view Arnold should move to the same direction .
Hi thank you for your helpful video, I have a problem with my Graphic card RTX 3080 the Arnold render doesn't recognize it, do you have any solutions?
Thanks in advance.
How to render alpha transparent background in Cinema 4d with Arnold renderer.... I tried everything but nothing working for me.... Can u plz help me to get transparent background with arnold in cinema 4d. ??? It always tender with black background even after Alpha channel ticked.... Even tried in all formats like png, exr... But nothing working...😢😢😢😢😢
Why not redshift?
Hi, i have a question to arnold. Did an update lately and now i can´t change the device in the renderer settings / system...Can someone help me with this?
thank you!
If you're using Houdini, try deleting the ".idx" files in Houdini's Presets folder. That can cause a ROP to be in an incorrect state (just came up last week on the email thread).
Its way tooooooooooo slow for small studio or solo artist.
I render 6k exteriors in 50 minutes and 6k interiors in 1 hour and 30 minutes or less. It is actually faster then popular renderers out there.
@@cirocardoso3v hardware?
@@georgeneverland896 HP Z4 i9-109040X 64GB
@@cirocardoso3v I just remembered its cpu based and the fact that you have a powerful cpu is the cause of the fast rendering considering the quality
@@tjseries3057 that is true. But the fact is that I need 6 to 8 hours with a very popular one button renderer for the same scene. I am using physical materials to do these comparisons and not being bias at all. In a production environment you can't go with the most cool solution, but the fastest and flexible option.
I was also told, oh it is too slow, but you need to understand how some things work. Once you do, then you unlock a powerful renderer. True that a 1 button solution sounds amazing but at least in production it is often a pain in the ass. I often have the famous error message "you need to simplify your scene" which is unacceptable for a production renderer.
thank you sir...
no indirect illumination in arnold also means no caustics proper lensing
Who is faster, ArnoldGPU or VrayGPU?
so whats the best in 2022 ?
I find it really complex to handle. Especially since there aren't many tutorials available
I use Arnold for 3ds Max and after a deep deep dig in let me tell you If you are a V-Ray or Corona user or anything else specially GPU render engines please don't waste your time just switch to Arnold.
arnold it's solid, i'm trying vray for complex animations right now and it's full of issues
For GPU is slow, and render setting is limited
Have solution or no?
It's cpu based, you need a powerful cpu like Intel core 19-10900 KF processor, or and ryzen 3950X just to name a few
Thank you for this video
Thank you for this comment
how tf can hobbyists afford both c4d AND a decent render engine. I just got c4d and I don't even know if I can use my gpu to render within c4d without the use of a 3rd party program
You can, don't worry. And, from what I now, Arnold is based in quasi-montecarlo formula, which you also get on cinema 4D as an option on the global illumination panel of the render settings. If it's hobby, you'll be fine with the cinema 4D renger engine.
is that true that arnold slow with CPU ?
Slower than other renders, but it's more responsive since it doesn't rely on BVH trees for preprocessing. Solid Angle founder Marcos Fajardo explained his competitors are trying to deliver the fastest renderer possible, but in the end the most photorealistic images made with the most flexible renderer are what get noticed and sell work. His team opts for the most realistic, most expensive calculations if the quality bump is noticeable. It also doesn't crawl to a halt with high geometry scenes.
Do you think Arnold makes better and smoother results in architecture renderings? I am using corona, and i am not always happy, but i think its about my skills. ;)
I worked one-two years with corona, and now since a few months with arnold. And I must admit, that corona is more straight forward to learn, more intuitive, but arnold delivers by far the better results with a quicker rendertime. Also arnold has tons features, and corona doesn‘t. Corona is great to create a quick render with a nice result, but if you‘re after photorealism, then arnold is your choice.
i like it. is arnold not support bloom?
Arnold does have Bloom coming soon in its stack of Render Imagers. You can do exposure, color correction, etc post-render.
Arnold Render is Amazing... become my favorite render Engine! 2 years using and counting
And BTW Arnold is definitely the best engine for production, using GPU for look-dev and cpu for rendering is a huge advantage, seems like there’s absolutely no competitor for it.
And I like to add that if you use a parallel software like Houdini, Arnold settings and shaders are transferable and the workflow is identical.
Same here, we actually switched to Houdini once we saw how perfectly it works with Arnold's node based shaders, like a lock and key. I highly recommend using Arnold Operators for auto-assigning materials based off object names. It saves us like 10 hours a week easily.
I find Arnold very interesting and exciting but I'm not really happy about the extremely congested way to approach an essential procedure like Denoiser. Arnold is not great in reducing the amount of noise especially when we deal with complicated interior. This is why denoise procedure is mandatory. The fact you cannot use ACES in Picture view means the workflow to achieve the final picture is really complicated. I hope Arnold will improve this part because at the moment is not consistent with the principle of making the user at the centre of their attention.
Actually can can use Aces in the picture viewer..... It's can find the setting to bake in the aces color space in the color management render settings or the preference browser
Hello
Please help how can I get Arnold?
Download the demo....
Great video ! I used to work with arnold, and it renders everything, no matter how much the polycount is. And nice quality. But.... it is multiple times slower than other renderers like Corona and especially Redshift. You didnt highlighted enough, that its not just slower, its 10times slower :D . And as a monodir path tracer its a really poor choice for interiors... So arnold is a no-go for archviz.
completely agree. last year I started using arnold for smaller projects and is shockingly slow at final render. Also that Cinema has never had a as good of an Arch vis solution as max/vray which is too bad bc the max interface is by far the worst.
Buddy, i am shocked to read your comment because i bought it yesterday, but is the final result nice?
Because for me important is the quality of the final result, i don`t interested in render times. ;)
Virtually ever render engine and 3D program has tones of customization to balance quality and render times. Are you sure its the render engine and only render engine that is the problem?
@@KrunoslavStifter try it...
@@gyulailevi I did.
Hey what your computer spec please? Cores, ram, card?
Ryzen 7 is a good starting point for enthusiast rendering. Freelance, go with 16 core Threadripper. Professional, do 32 Threadripper cores. Minimum RAM should be 64GB when you're starting out. You may need 128GB once you start working with smoke, fire, water. A great GPU to get is the older 2080Ti. It doesn't emit as much heat as current Ampere cards and is more stable. Plus it'll render 75% of your Arnold scenes natively. Scenes that don't fit can have their texture resolution globally reduced (easy Render Settings value). Textures use a lot of VRAM.
@@reaktorleak89 Awesome! I have a mac bucket w 12 cores and 128gbram. But I was wondering what you had and it's twice as much. Rock on!
softEX softs like a mouthorgan.. why?
Arnold love with this engine for photorealistic renders
01: Not really, Octane for example is exact same, it's unbiased and provide physically accurate ( realistic ) results, something like Redshift ( renderer based on Arnold I think ) on another hand might look more fake because it's pretty much raw without any postfx or tonemapping out of the box + it's highly biased ( can be used in Unbiased mode but then it becomes one of the slowest GPU renderers close to Arnold itself ) .
03: Features.. V-Ray 5 blows out of the water any renderer in terms of Features and actually it might be the overall best renderer out there, it has tons of features, CPU, GPU & Hybrid rendering, AOV's, one of the best feature-packed IPR's w/ instant feedback, Cryptomatte, Built-In advanced postfx/compositor etc and most importantly it's fairly fast in unbiased mode ( same as Octane for GPU, fastest CPU renderer ).
For example what I dislike about Arnold is that it's super slow not only in terms of rendering but even the IPR is "dogshit", I press "Play" icon and have to wait for it to load single HDR and 5K poly model for like half minute, also there's no features for stylized lighting for example I can't exclude "A" object from "B" light so the light has no effect on certain objects, using Arnold I would have to render multiple images and then composite the lighting in Photoshop just like studio photographers do. Idk but Arnold will need like 5-10 more years till it gets even close to current Octane or V-Ray. The only reason to use Arnold is probably for stability and poly/scene optimization, nothing else. Studios ofcourse has farms etc so they don't really care about speed but for a regular dude who has for example 16-64GB RAM, Ryzen 5-9 and single or two GTX/RTX GPU Arnold is simply not an option.
Arnold IS the way.
Does anyone know if Arnold C4d works with Apple M1 Metal
want to know the answer too
@@poidem_domoi it works if you start c4d with rosetta, hope that helps.
vray also can give you cpu/gpu renderer in c4d
@WOW_ NICE_ Beta?
Yeah, have fun not being able to render out motion blur/dof, cause it'll take impossibly long to clean, or incredibly expensive. And still no tone mapping support in 2020? Best my ass.
@Slobbo
You really haven't go a clue. Like zero, nothing, nada. Tone mapping ROTFL.
that got me confused over color mapping
@@yobooboy5591 how about a simple tonemap job like highlight compression? You know, the thing that literally any other renderer can do? Maybe now magic bullet look in R23 can help, but it still won't make it render any faster.
@@SlobboVideo I mean for the blur you could use something like after effects or Nuke to add it
@@SlobboVideo you do realize that arnold in c4d has full filmic tone mapping, and a more basic reinhard tone mapper right? Your ass is showing. Also on top of having the best tone mapper in a render engine....it has full built in aces support. Sorry but go educate yourself m8.
🤔 is there a difference in render times (for the same scene) between Arnold for C4D and Arnold for Maya ?
Nope, they use the same Core. The only difference is in the plugins that translate your 3D scene to "Arnold Scene Source" files that are stored in a temp folder and then opened with Kick.exe
Exactly !
OCTANE IS THE BEST
3ds max has built-in Arnold. I'm forced to learn it, I can't afford v-ray subscription anymore.
I don't see any difference
The realism is due to the designer's experience and nothing more
Most realistic??? Are you kidding me?? It is not a spectral renderer with caustics (2:53 that's realistic?? Where are the real caustics?) and Bidirection Path Tracing and Metropolis Light Transport and... Or should I quote directly from their web site: "'Hard' caustics from small but bright light sources (e.g., a spot light through a cognac glass) are not currently possible. " and "Arnold uses simple, uni-directional path tracing. Rays start at the camera, not at the lights. Arnold does not use bi-directional path tracing (nor any other bi-directional technique, such as photon mapping, which fires rays from the lights). When using standard lights, like point lights and spot lights, which are idealized lights with zero area, i.e. point lights, it is simply impossible for Arnold's GI/reflection/refraction rays to hit the lights. Therefore, there are no caustics."
no indirect illumination in arnold also means no caustics proper lensing
Dude, if your brain works like a math teacher and not an artist, than no wonder you are stuck. Humans are not calculators. We perceive things that we associated with reality. 500 years ago painters could make something feel more real than real life with paint and brushes and broad strokes. Why? Because they understood humans and did not try to make humans into calculators. I suggest you expand your view.
It's certainly not as robust regarding the other points you've made, but Cycles4D also allows for CPU/GPU switching.
Arnold real best, but it's crush often with my mobile rtx2060 GPU render. Perhaps because memory not enough. Maybe you fix it someday. Thank you for you render anyway!
I have an RTX3090 T and it crashes as well.... :(
I know it's amazing but it's there wasn't enough or no comparisons for each point.
I’m on a new iMac. R23. Subbed to Arnold render two months ago....crashes about 5 Times a day.
Mac and 3rd party renderers suck in general. I’d get a dedicated PC for 3D with one good NVidia GPU.
how we can make an animation with one computer in Arnold ?with redshift or octane it's too easy !
farzad mirgomari quicker computer 💻
@@jhalanddesign :))) I have 16 core computer but I can't get good quality specially with interior scene in Arnold.
@@farzadmirgomari6592 get yourself a Cuda core GFX card too so you can use the Optix denoiser
Amen.
what about V-Ray ?
That's why octane sucks .
Whenever I drop 10 cubes octane be like .
____________________/______
This is true, I love Octane but man it crashes a lot!!!!
No, you cannot use Arnold’s GPU rendering as a reason why it’s “the best renderer for Cinema 4D”! That’s just a biased, subjective opinion based on little fact. Almost every other GPU renderer for C4D out there, is far quicker and less cumbersome than Arnold GPU. The other points you make are fairly valid, but the GPU one is definitely vastly exaggerated.
The Number 5 reason is that it has *both* GPU and CPU options, not just GPU. That’s a fairly big distinction over GPU-only renderers.
Pfff
I love Arnold render and used it a lot these last years but I always faced to slow renders and/or noises issues. And redshift a way faster and extremely stable. More stable and maybe can handle more geometry and big numbers of lights as well. Maybe Arnold is a little bit more realistic as it’s unbiased but it’s a very small difference. Difficult to choose between the two and I think from time to come back to Arnold.
But the last time I did it, Arnold crashed whereas redshift was able to handle the scene much more easily.
the best render engine is the what you like the most
yup
CPU base render , 10k computer will handle
All this complexity and you see it easy?
I don't know what's complicated hahahaha
I'll give it a try and see if what you say is true
Arnold plus render farm
arnold
it's the best but it's toooooo slow
Not for architectural visualisation it isn’t. Corona wins hands down.
Why do you think? Because of the result or render time?
Crashing evetytime on high poly displacement 8k multiudims renders
I cant make any money off Arnold. It is agonizingly slow despite scene optimization and sample juggling.
C, RS
OCTANE ;)
It just crashes too much. It is amazing and I love it, but when you really need to push it, it falls over, Arnold always feels so stable, so so stable.
@@misterr3083 I don't have those issues. But i also don't say Arnold is bad, i just prefer Octane over everything else. Just my personal prefrence ^^
and arnold isnt user friendly much lol, but ye preference
cycle4d
Why?
Vray 5 for c4d is bullshit
Coronas final look blows anything out of the water imo it looks just right. redshift is a bit too clinical but makes up for that with speed. there is no real "best renderer" its a matter of taste, as there is no "best pizza"
Do you think Coronas archiviz results are better than arnold? Regards.
@@Amorstopineed hard to judge, for me corona gets closer to that scandinavian feeling when looking at pure white interiors. i used vray for a really long time but once corona came around i never looked back. arnold is somewhere in between for me. if you like it use it, its as simple as that.
@@7ens3nButt0n Thank you man, yes i already learning it at the moment. Some renders really got insane quality, i hope i can continue with that.