Constructive criticism/question: Why cycles render often times looks plasticky compared to other render engines?
Hello guys. I would like to bring something up that is something significant and I hope would get some serious attention.
I am still new to 3d modelling and as I was starting to get familiar with how render engines work and also got to know the other common names in the industry, there is one critical thing that I have observed with regards to cycles render quality result.
Cycles renders a good output but I am not sure if this is just me but most of the renders I have seen by cycles that requires rendering some organically shaded/textured things (Ex: Food, plants, animals, and humans.), they quite appear to have some appearance of plasticky elements(looks like plastic) and the shadings(gradient reflection effects) looks a little lacking or flat(no depth) which can significantly affect the realism of the composition.
Metals, glass, fabrics and some other specific glossy materials are somehow considered out of the issue and they lool realistic but just lacks some depth similar to the recent group of subjects.
My question is, am I missing something? Is there some specific algorithm that those other common render engines like luxcore and octane have in common that cycles render engine doesn't have or implement?
I hope this would not be taken negatively. I am a supporter of blender and its render engine's improvements and success. I just wanted to bring something up that might help solve some issues if possible. I believe this missing element is also a game changer for blender not only for realism but also for stylized. The shadings in renders are very vital for greater realism and depth. Thank you.
Big respect to the blender dev team.
7 Comments
My $.02 ....
If you have specific issues, you should report them as bugs to the Cycles development team. Comparison images are always welcome, and I've always received a response on rendering issues that I've posted - although it's not always what I wanted to hear.
I come from a background of using V-Ray, Arnold, and Redshift and I will agree that when using those renderers it is easier to achieve more realistic/rich results. Those renderers also are based on different algorithms - and they have their weaknesses, too. I also use Blender every day to make my living and I haven't run into a job yet where Cycles and EEVEE haven't done what I've needed them to. If I do run into that situation, I will probably bite the bullet and pay for the Octane or V-Ray renderer equipped version of Blender ... but so far, my clients have been thrilled with the results they get.
The question is: Do you know Cycles inside and out? Do you know all the tricks that can be done with it and how to overcome some of it's glaring issues? Until you reach that level, can you honestly say it is incapable of achieving a particular look?
Is Cycles perfect? Not at all - far from it. It has it's "gotchas" and weaknesses for sure - but most are being addressed by the devs and can be worked around (just like every OTHER renderer out there). If you want to see a particular tool improve, help direct that improvement by offering examples and well-thought-out suggestions. Blender has come an insanely long way in the past few years, and I don't really see that momentum slowing down - and a big part of that has been the community.
In the end, you should probably pick the tool you need for the job at hand - which may not be Blender/Cycles at that moment. There has never been, and probably never will be, a "perfect" 3D package/renderer. Such is life ;)
* @joe * I appreciate the inputs. I will do my best to follow this up on blender development forums. I am just a new 3d modeller and I have a slight idea of how render engines work under the hood. This is truly just from a users perspective and not from a developer. I have some coding experiences but they are totally forgotten and erased already from my mind because I found more interest in graphic design. My respect is big for all developers, I know the the challenges that are at hand though.
I've seen some incredibly realistic renders from artists that are using Cycles. I think a lot of it comes down to how you use the tools. Are you just plugging in textures into a principled shader or are you building up the shader using your eye to match a reference image. Using sss or translucency and blending that into your shader can make a huge difference. Playing with the specular values, IOR values and not just leaving these at their defaults can also make a big difference. I have also seen many a discussion about how Octane has a look that artists are saying makes all their renders look the same. I think these kind of conversations are across all render engines, but I think it comes down to the artists and how they are using the tools provided. Sure, Cycles has some features missing that could push the realism out of the box, but I don't think that it's lacking to the point that you can't achieve realism using it :)
* @rence.jaeger * I totally get what you are implying to. I would like to see those renders you are referring. In my opinion, these issues are not instantly obvious on archviz or hard surface models but it is highly noticeable with organic models/textures.
You would probably know what I mean if you render a single composition to different k8nds of render engines and compare the shadings and reflections. As I have observed, I have to admit blender is the only reender result that looks unrealistic and somehow all objects looks flat(no depth) and plasticky even on humans and organic objects.
I would be interest for you to show me a composited organic model in blender, so that I could point out to you the possible issues. Even if it is complexly post processed and technically enhanced by some shading features inside cycles, the effects can only go a long way and still the issues are there. I believe blender needs to acknowledge that the render algorithm needs some changes for it to grow and prevent stagnation due to the algorithm that binds the whole system. Render speed is not the only essential element in render engines and I hope the blender team and community would see the full picture. Sometimes I always ask why blender render still feels way behind most render engines. Solving this would not only improve the realism side of blender but also stylistic, motion graphics and 2d animations.
* @rence.jaeger * The missing details are what I am trying to point out. There are some shadings that the render engine just doesn't catch. This causes some depth issues. Depth is not only important in realism but in all forms of art as well. Unless you are trying to achieve a composition/art that has no depth. I have seen a lot of stylized composition and mographs from different render engines and whay they have is depth. Their 3d cartoon animations looks way better because the render engine takes into high consideration the imporrant algorithms that helps the engine catch all the important path/ligts that create depth and better shading(soft shadings/specific gradient shading elements). I believe all renders from cycles have this issue, even if it is heavilly configured with nodes and shading settings. Again post processing can just go a long way and on the other hand may additionally introduce more noise or quality reduction.
I know that at least caustics, dispersion and iridescence aspects are missing from Cycles because it's an RGB engine and not a spectral one (wahterver that means). They are still achievable by workarounds but not everyone is doing it. Also I've never seen a fully convincing velvet material from cycles.
* @Ge Ro * The work on impementing spectral rendering options already started, so maybe we will see improvements in the future: devtalk.blender.org/t/thoughts-on-making-cycles-into-a-spectral-renderer/2192/603