The best rendering engine?

[Oscar J]

Okay, a couple of reading comprehension fails there on your part.

* V-Ray doesn't support the alshader, only alSurface. Arnold won't use alShader from version 5 and forward. Redshift doesn't use alShader, but can convert such materials to a degree.

* Arnold has a lot of people working on characters all day long, Indigo doesn't. That's probably a big contributing factor if there's a quality difference between the best skin renders from Indigo and Arnold.

* What do you know about Indigo's "Phong" material type and what reflection model it uses? As has been mentioned already, "Phong" is just a name for it - it's frequently being updated and improved, and this is the first time I've heard anyone complains about it. Phong *is* "good enough", and is probably a more physicslly correct material than an alShader, which containd a whole array of biased parameters that don't make sense in a physically correct renderer.

There's no Arnold hate. It's just a completely different concept, a fundamentally different rendering engine.

Indigo doesn't have a dedicated skin material type, although it's definitely achievable with Glossy transparent + SSS or the new FastSSS material type. How about you make a request for a good skin shader instead of suggesting we replace Indigo's material models, meticulously developed for 10+ years, with a biased and discontinued shading system from a different rendering engine?

[FakeShamus]

Does Indigo have anything close to the alshader skin material?

given access to that specific head model with all the necessary maps and yes, I think Indigo can achieve something as good as what you see there. Oscar J also makes some good points about the different intent or focus of different engines, which is probably why you don't see more skin shader examples coming out of the Indigo community. But just generally without a level playing field these comparisons are meaningless.

[agentwd40]

Okay Oscar, as far as porting a shader that's been in "biased" rendering engines into Indigo, I guess your right. Let's say Indigo wanted to port a shader that's only been in "biased" rendering engines... like diffuse. You can't port diffuse into Indigo! Diffuse is clearly written for a fundamentally different, biased rendering system. Diffuse containd a whole array of biased parameters that don't make sense in a physically correct renderer. No one is using the diffuse shader anymore. It's been... discontinued. Who wants to use a discontinued shader?

If Indigo can do skin material like the alshader, then why hasn't it been done? Don't tell me it can be done, show me. I've taken the best images in Indigo's gallery and put it up against the alshader. I see a very big difference. Don't tell, show. You want that head model? Here you go: http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=free+head+scan+models

I've made the request to have alshader ported into Indigo.
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do better skin then Indigo's,
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do better metal,
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do coating better then Indigo,
I expect the idea will be rejected. Who wants a shader that's been discontinued?

Have fun with Phong.

[Eneen]

I've made the request to have alshader ported into Indigo.
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do better skin then Indigo's,
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do better metal,
[*]Even though the alshader is able to do coating better then Indigo,
I expect the idea will be rejected. Who wants a shader that's been discontinued?

Please show me proof that all Indigo shaders are worse then alshaders.

Comparing quality of shaders so everything matches is IMO really hard if not impossible task and it is not comparison if you throw completely different pictures and say "hey this is better". All shortcuts taken will lead to bad results, and taking whatever picture can't be even called shortcut if you know what I mean. Internet is full of such things.

If you compare render engines' shaders in such way (different pictures and personal opinion) could you do similar comparison as here:
https://www.indigorenderer.com/forum/vi ... =7&t=14243
...but for skin?
Maybe using Indigo fastsss, coating, blend and "phong" you can mimic alshaders skin shader structure?

Small sidenote here: When two people that know something meet both get richer.

[thesquirell]

- "Have fun with Phong."

Told you should rename it, lol. Now look at all that food you prepared for trolls.

On a side note,
"Which engine is the best? Doesn't matter. It come down to number of light bounces and materials. "

So, just skip the aporia of your own conclusion, and try Indigo out with nicely defined materials, and I'm sure you'll find that Indigo has you covered, in every situation. Going around, heads against the wall like this, will not get you very far, my friend.

Can't wait for Oscar's response, lol! xD

[lycium]

Let's say Indigo wanted to port a shader that's only been in "biased" rendering engines... like diffuse.

What on Earth are you talking about... diffuse isn't even a shader, it's a BRDF / reflection model. There's nothing biased or unbiased about it, it's a reflection model; if you're interested, here's a good resource on what bias in rendering actually means: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kmcrane/Project ... dering.pdf

Have fun with Phong.

Told you should rename it, lol. Now look at all that food you prepared for trolls.

Unfortunately, you (thesquirell) are 100% correct here, he's enjoying that strawman argument against Phong way too much...

Incidentally, Indigo has never actually used Phong, it was initially Blinn-Phong, and since version 3.6 from 5 years ago is a much more realistic model.

[Oscar J]

Well, nothing to add here except I think these recent tests by Arnold and Indigo user Sroka8888 are quite cool: https://www.indigorenderer.com/forum/vi ... 60#p140160

In general, rendering characters in Indigo is pretty uncommon AFAIK, and nobody's going to do it just to win an argument. But thanks for the head model.

[Originalplan®]

Well, nothing to add...

One more thing tho..

https://vimeo.com/103857211

[vondes]

In terms of pure output Indigo or Maxwell are probably the best, with Indigo having the edge due to its better AA. It is also significantly faster and has MLT etc., while Maxwell has more features and plugins.

[mpro31]

https://bellarender.com

some great features, indigo is much faster though

[ErichBoehm]

I have had quite a bit of downtime over the past few months and have been messing around with every rendering tool I could get my hands on. Long story short, from a Mac user, Indigo and Maxwell win out in terms of render quality. I tried Bella too and it is great (a TON of potential), but the user interface had me pulling my hair out for the last few hours. Keyshot claims to be unbiased, but the render quality is noticeably worse then the aforementioned 2.

Indigo is an interesting option, because it is the only one that offers a usable free option and it is probably the most user friendly out of all of them. Thing is though, there is quite a bit of competition and Indigo falls short when it comes to features. Keyshot has some wonderfully quick and easy environment settings for instance that allow you to change lighting effortlessly just by dragging studio presets into your scene. It just works and something like this would be great in Indigo. They nailed texture mapping too.

Maverick looks great, but no Mac version. With better texture mapping and more environment settings (I love the way Keyshot lets you light your scene with an HDR but lets you use a color for your backdrop if you don't want to see the image in the background), Indigo could really start to compete with some of the big players in this industry.

[ErichBoehm]

Indigo gives exceptional results. Some of the best.


The problem is with the user interface. It feels very unfinished and you're left with a very slow, clunky, and inefficient workflow. No undo/redo history option. No option to iterate with multiple versions of a scene. No way to remember camera settings, so I resort to taking photos of the UI with my phone and inputting the numbers (Is this 2021 or 1995?). No autosave in case of a crash. No visual thumbnails for materials like every other rendering tool out there. No ability to move objects, so you have to quit Indigo if you accidentally left something is floating in mid air. No option to replace all materials by name, so if you have to manually go through and switch them out one by one. No ability to create a local material library, which results in you wasting time loading the same materials repeatedly (Indigo should let you put materials in a folder and then load them on startup.) No option to export to Photoshop or load 3D files. A completely unintuitive texture editor that feels like it's from the 90s.

This is 2021, folks. We have AI tech reshaping the world we live in. Indigo could use AI to locate parts of your scene that are still grainy and then focus on that or it could use AI to create a material from an object in a picture. The possibilities are endless in the age that we live in. Indigo just seems reluctant to take those big leaps.