TG2Rendering and Mental Ray

[TheBadger]

Hello,

Hope I don't end up irritating anyone with this (seems a sensitive subject on the internets for some reason) but I need some guidance here.

I am just now beginning to expand my exploration of 3D image making beyond TG2 so please correct me any place you see that I am wrong. These questions are in relation to buying the student version of Maya which comes with mental ray, and for slightly more money can also include vray. I know there are lots of students using TG2 so if your interested you can get all of autodesks animation stuff for about $324

TG2
1) As I understand things right now, TG2 renders a much more realistic image. That is to say, lighting and atmosphere are more "photorealistic" than an image rendered in mental ray, or in vray. Is this correct? Why or why not?

2) You can import a model from any major modeling program into TG2 as an object to render, and it will look better than it would if rendered in mental ray/vray. Is this correct?

3) The only thing you can't render in TG2 is objects with complex movements, that is, an object that not only moves but  also has parts to it which move, as in a bird or a man. Is this correct?

4) If Question #3 is correct, then it would be better to animate objects outside of TG2 and composite, or is it better to transfer the TG2 environment into maya and render in mental ray?

5) The only limitations to the renderer in TG2 as I understand it is 1: People say it is slow (this is true of all renderers?) 2: Animating object such as a bird flying or a man walking is not possible. It this correct?

Adding vray to the student bundle is just shy of $200 more, but if I want it I must buy it at the same time. Is it worth it? Or is mental ray good enough for film quality work?

Please help me to understand things a little better.

Thank you

[Hannes]

1.) Yes and no. TG renders excellent exterior renders with an incredible reality. That doesn't necessarily mean that images rendered with TG are more photorealistic than images rendered with MR or Vray. It depends what you want to do. TG is especially made for photorealistic landscaping and does a very good job in creating the landscapes and the athmospheres, surfacing, adding lots of objects and of course the rendering. MR and Vray are just renderers (OK, including some sophisticated lighting and so on). They can render exterior shots too, but all in all it depends on what you are rendering.
You can create heavy populations of trees for example in MR or VRay with some neat scattering functions and proxies. You can render subsurface scattering (which TG isn't able to at the moment )
In my opinion there's nothing better than TG to create photorealistic terrains. Just surf the net for MR or VRay example images to make your own decision.

2.) No! MR and VRay are sophisticated renderers and produce very convincing results. Objects imported into TG can look very good too, of course, but you have to spend a lot of time in reworking the textures and so on. Good too, but not necessarily better.

3.) No. You can render animated objects in TG, but you have to animate them in another package and to export it as an object sequence.

4.) Even if Q3 was not correct sometimes it's better to render each of the different components of a composition in the appropriate 3d package.

5.) A. Speed depends on what you are rendering. A simple scene with decent settings renders quite fast in TG. High quality volumetric clouds take a lot longer of course. All in all I have to say that TG does a very good job. Yesterday I was rendering a scene with a population of a high res tree. I had a million instances. You can imagine how many faces there were.  Population took a while, but then it rendered rather quick. It's the same with the other renderers. What makes them special is the ability to render cool stuff in realistic lighting. That takes of course longer than rendering a sphere and a cube with a spotlight and a shadow map.
B. Yes, this is true. You can't make birds flap their wings or humans walk in TG. You have to do the animation in another 3d app. BUT of course you can animate the position or scale or rotation of an object as well as some components of the texture. You can animate almost everything in TG you can find the buttons for, but not the objects themselves.

It's hard to say if MR or VRay is better. Ask ten people and you'll get ten different opinions. I think MR is really good, and if you're short of money, it might be a good solution to save your money. But you'll have to form your own opinion. Look for galleries and then make your decision.

I hope I could answer your questions...

[TheBadger]

Thank you so much Hannes! I feel less in the dark now.

[JimB]

I use TG2 and Mental Ray (via XSI) almost every day. If you want to render a car in a desert, use Mental Ray for the car alone and TG2 for the desert. If you want to render a forest with a squillion trees, rocks, etc, use TG2.... even for one tree to be honest.

You can create environment maps in TG2 to use in Mental Ray for lighting, etc. Here's an example of mixing MR with TG2:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=13210.0

Bear in mind that in some circumstances MR can also be very slow. Try a final gathering render with a single diffuse bounce on a very high poly detailed city

[goldfarb]

1) As I understand things right now, TG2 renders a much more realistic image. That is to say, lighting and atmosphere are more "photorealistic" than an image rendered in mental ray, or in vray. Is this correct? Why or why not?

no.
this is true of all all renderers
the 'photorealisitic' quality of a final image (not counting compositing, which EVERYONE uses) is entirely dependent on what you give the renderer and the technical and artistic quality of the artist...give me the worst/slowest/least flexible renderer ever made and I can make a more 'photorealisitic' image than someone who doesn't know anything about 3d...
the trick, if there is one, is to understand the strengths of the different applications and how to get the best out of them.
MR is a very fine renderer that has been around for years and can produce some amazing images...but so can vray...and prman...and mantra...
don't let anyone tell you that one renderer is better than another.

2) You can import a model from any major modeling program into TG2 as an object to render, and it will look better than it would if rendered in mental ray/vray. Is this correct?


no.
see above.
and note that terragen doesn't support the kind of programmable shading that is available in something like MR or prman...

3) The only thing you can't render in TG2 is objects with complex movements, that is, an object that not only moves but  also has parts to it which move, as in a bird or a man. Is this correct?

no.
you can import animated geometry (of any complexity) into terragen...from a rolling ball to a Transformer...er...transforming.

4) If Question #3 is correct, then it would be better to animate objects outside of TG2 and composite, or is it better to transfer the TG2 environment into maya and render in mental ray?

as in JimB's example...pick the application that gives you the best results...all things being equal MR will render a better car that terragen - no contest.


5) The only limitations to the renderer in TG2 as I understand it is 1: People say it is slow (this is true of all renderers?) 2: Animating object such as a bird flying or a man walking is not possible. It this correct?

1. Slow compared to what? rendering what? compared to many commercial renderers Terragen is slow for some thing but very fast for others.
2. Terragen doesn't do 'deformations'...just transformations...so no, you can't animate a man walking - but you can import geometry of a man walking.

Adding vray to the student bundle is just shy of $200 more, but if I want it I must buy it at the same time. Is it worth it? Or is mental ray good enough for film quality work?

MR is good enough for film quality work:
http://www.mentalimages.com/gallery/motion-pictures.html

but the real question is..are YOU good enough?
and the answer is...not YET.

and this is the biggest problem with questions like these, and the reason why places like CGtalk don't allow the conversation at all, too many people just starting out in the industry expect to be able to get their hands on an application that they heard was used to make some film and start it up and produce 'film quality' or 'photorealisitic' work right away...and it just isn't possible (not counting the massive impact of compositing). I've been working in the industry for 10 years now and there are aspects of this work (mostly modeling and shading) that I'm terrible at...even after 10 years. The main reason is that I've concentrated on character work, not those other aspects of the job...the point is it takes a lot of work, often very boring, tedious, unrewarding work to get to the next level in anything you try to do in CG.

as for maya and mr and vray...
this is my $0.02 - forget about vray for now...
learn maya and more about CG, use mr and really try to understand why it does what it does and how you can make it do what you want...and after a while you may find that you don't need or want vray...or maybe you do - but at least by then you'll know why you want it.

hope that helps

[TheBadger]

Thank you JimB,
I wanted to ask how you made that video when I saw it in the image thread. When I saw it, thats about the time I decided to move forward with buying a 3d package. Its all about being able to tell a story!

Thank you goldfarb,
I think your advice is very good, and you give conformation to others who have said something similar, so it sounds like wisdom to me. I will buy the student package of maya and pass on vray. The price is low enough that I can fail and loose almost nothing. So Im going to try, and see if I can get any where.

Thanks fellas