Lightwave Native vs. Maxwell.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:38 am
In response to a lot of people who are complaining about the amount of time maxwell takes to render... umm.... I don't think so.
There ARE issues with noise, which hopefully will be fixed, and we need glass that works, but otherwise Maxwell kicks LW's butt for photorealistic rendering.
FYI: I first started using LW in 1998 with V5.6. I'm by no means a LW newbie. The LW image includes gradients, etc. etc. I spent about 1.5 hours texturing and setting up the scene.
The maxwell scene is a different story. Aside from having a different object for the transparent object (no 'air' polys facing in) The scene is identical.
For both scenes there is just a single light source (point light) on the maxwell side I used a very small sphere (about 20 polys). Keep in mind I have been using LW for more then seven years... and I don't think I've been using maxwell for 7 months... I'm sure with a bit of tweaking I could bring the LW image much closer to the Maxwell image... however, my whole intent with this wasn't to work for 5 hours.. I imagined that i had to produce an image for a client in one work day.
The LW image failed. The maxwell was done so soon, there was time for client input for the FINAL.
Here they are:
LW image:
Settings
Radiosity: 4x12 (low to meet the deadline)
Caustics: default except for accuracy set to 525
AA: 3 passes
Time: 7h27m + setup = Total 8h 57m... over budget and frankly unacceptable. The image is over exposed... but because it took soooo long to see anything in this case I figured one could get an idea of the differences without loosing time to lower the light level.
LIGHTWAVE IMAGE:

------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Image:
Settings
Standard materials.
small ball for emitter in the same location as the LW light, set to 2000%
setup time 20 minutes
Render time: 4 hours.
I actually rendered it DOUBLE SIZE to take care of the noise issue, so in fact this four hour render is for an image TWO TIMES as large as the Lightwave image. I estimate that LW would have rendered for 12 hours or more with these dimensions.
Had I left it to render for 7 hours like Lightwave it would have been almost noiseless, and TWICE AS BIG.
MAXWELL IMAGE:

In conclusion, Yes, I COULD come very close to this image in quality with Lightwave, but I estimate between the higher radiosity settings and other texturing 'tweaks' it could take as long as 20 hours including rendering.
So, Maxwell is a slow renderer? Umm... not compared to Lightwave. In most cases with Lightwave I would use an area light, no radiosity, no caustics, no depth of field, or even motion blur just simply to get an image that didn't suck within an hour or so. 99% of my CG images on my website are Lightwave WITHOUT caustics or radiosity. I don't know about you... but I'm never going back.
Cheers all.
There ARE issues with noise, which hopefully will be fixed, and we need glass that works, but otherwise Maxwell kicks LW's butt for photorealistic rendering.
FYI: I first started using LW in 1998 with V5.6. I'm by no means a LW newbie. The LW image includes gradients, etc. etc. I spent about 1.5 hours texturing and setting up the scene.
The maxwell scene is a different story. Aside from having a different object for the transparent object (no 'air' polys facing in) The scene is identical.
For both scenes there is just a single light source (point light) on the maxwell side I used a very small sphere (about 20 polys). Keep in mind I have been using LW for more then seven years... and I don't think I've been using maxwell for 7 months... I'm sure with a bit of tweaking I could bring the LW image much closer to the Maxwell image... however, my whole intent with this wasn't to work for 5 hours.. I imagined that i had to produce an image for a client in one work day.
The LW image failed. The maxwell was done so soon, there was time for client input for the FINAL.
Here they are:
LW image:
Settings
Radiosity: 4x12 (low to meet the deadline)
Caustics: default except for accuracy set to 525
AA: 3 passes
Time: 7h27m + setup = Total 8h 57m... over budget and frankly unacceptable. The image is over exposed... but because it took soooo long to see anything in this case I figured one could get an idea of the differences without loosing time to lower the light level.
LIGHTWAVE IMAGE:

------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Image:
Settings
Standard materials.
small ball for emitter in the same location as the LW light, set to 2000%
setup time 20 minutes
Render time: 4 hours.
I actually rendered it DOUBLE SIZE to take care of the noise issue, so in fact this four hour render is for an image TWO TIMES as large as the Lightwave image. I estimate that LW would have rendered for 12 hours or more with these dimensions.
Had I left it to render for 7 hours like Lightwave it would have been almost noiseless, and TWICE AS BIG.
MAXWELL IMAGE:

In conclusion, Yes, I COULD come very close to this image in quality with Lightwave, but I estimate between the higher radiosity settings and other texturing 'tweaks' it could take as long as 20 hours including rendering.
So, Maxwell is a slow renderer? Umm... not compared to Lightwave. In most cases with Lightwave I would use an area light, no radiosity, no caustics, no depth of field, or even motion blur just simply to get an image that didn't suck within an hour or so. 99% of my CG images on my website are Lightwave WITHOUT caustics or radiosity. I don't know about you... but I'm never going back.
Cheers all.