Vray vs Mental ray GI

On 8/16/2006 5:01:53 AM, Petar Stamenkovic wrote:
>The result you get with MR
>will be far superior even in
>1per1 not to mention in
>1per1/10, but that might not
>be too big an issue for you.

This just isn't true...
I use MR and I have next to no experience of V-Ray, but saying that the 
result will be far superior is just ridiculous. V-Rays quality speaks for 
itself, and the difference in quality for all of the renderers out there is 
extremely small.

Dave
MAX Plugins.de
The database for all known MAX Plugins

>>This just isn't true...
I use MR and I have next to no experience of V-Ray, but saying that the 
result will be far superior is just ridiculous. V-Rays quality speaks for 
itself, and the difference in quality for all of the renderers out there is 
extremely small.

I started a discussion over which of the 2 renderers is better a while back. 
It started in exterior and moved to interior. Now I’m not sure if the 
thread is still here (it was in this forum, this section) with all the pictures

and the results, but as far as I’m concerned the results were pretty simple 
and straight forward.

In exteriors MR, simply put, outperforms VR in both speed and quality, where 
the latter has been disputed. I think that it’s plain to see the difference 
and anyone saying otherwise….

Back to interiors: This was a much closer mach, with the slight advantage in 
speed in MR, and imho, a noticeable advantage in quality, again in MR. What 
those tests do not show is the absolute horridness of MR in interior 
animations. They flicker like mad even on higher settings. I wish we included 
those too, as those could (even though I haven’t seen it, I’m fairly 
confident that a serious renderer such as VRay would render interiors, its
alleged 
playground, without flickering) and prove VRay a better choice for interior 
animations. I just cant say for sure as I haven’t used VRay since.

One of the biggest advantages of MR is in exteriors. It can use ridiculously 
low FG samples (20+) and give outstanding results nevertheless.

There could be people saying that this isn’t true, but I think the pictures 
of those tests speak better than any words ever could. I just hope that its 
still here to be seen. (I still have all the pictures of all of those tests 
on my computer at home)

---
EoDEo

Ideas drift like petals on the wind. You have only to lift your face to the 
breeze.

>In exteriors MR, simply put,
>outperforms VR in both speed
>and quality, where the latter
>has been disputed. I think
>that it’s plain to see the
>difference and anyone saying
>otherwise….

The aforementioned thread proved that VRay outperformed MR in both speed and 
quality. You chose to ignore some serious aliasing errors in your MR 
renders.



> What those tests do not
>show is the absolute
>horridness of MR in interior
>animations. They flicker like
>mad even on higher settings.

That's because each individual frame rendered with MR has a greater degree of 
error than frames rendered in VRay in equal time. You'd have to 
selectively ignore the noise in a single frame to say that MR is good for
interior 
stills and bad for animation, as the GI in a still has the same margin of 
error as the GI in a frame from a sequence.


>One of the biggest advantages
>of MR is in exteriors. It can
>use ridiculously low FG
>samples (20+) and give
>outstanding results
>nevertheless.

You could use low settings in any renderer. It all depends on how high or low 
your personal standards are, what your client will accept and how long 
you're willing to spend adjusting & re-rendering instead of cranking up the

settings, confidently setting off a single render and going home for the 
weekend.

For the best bang for your low-settings buck, you should consider using Light 
Tracer, as its adaptive undersampling deals with geometric detail far, far 
better than MR. It can place GI samples far apart on flat surfaces and 
concentrate them around edges & corners. There's no fly-through mode, but
it's 
friendly to baking light-maps with RTT.


If you're rendering the characters in MR, you might as well render the 
scenery in MR. Mixing renderers in a single project is always problematic - 
especially if their shaders are incompatible. That way you can adapt shaders 
from - say - a character's clothes to a living-room curtain, or from ears to 
leaves. You could also render visual interactions between characters & 
scenery in a single pass, should the need arise.