Corona render speed

[Hany666]

Hello,

I have a question about the corona render speed.  In future will be some speed improvements?
Because this is really good renderer, but rendering image in 3.5K res is problem.

Thank you

Lukas

[Captain Obvious]

Buy another machine or two and use distributed rendering. Or use Rebus; I think they support Max+Corona.


Corona is extremely fast for what it does, but since what it does is a very accurate simulation of light it's going to be pretty slow. Something like irradiance caching would speed things up but it would also remove some of the appeal of Corona.

[juang3d]

 Single picture at 3.5K takes around 2 hours or three in my system, is that too much?

Cheers.

[Hany666]

I need 3.5K less than 20 minutes. 1 Hour or 2 per picture is not usable for the production. Corona has really nice renders but speed is key for me.

[Ludvik Koutny]

Well then use Furryball or Unreal Engine. That will get you a lot further if you need speed but do not care about quality. Or keep using Vray.

[Juraj]

I need 3.5K less than 20 minutes. 1 Hour or 2 per picture is not usable for the production. Corona has really nice renders but speed is key for me.

With 140 cores I have, I do not manage 20 minute finals, in any of engines I use.. that's simply where Backburner and careful planning comes in.

I dislike to get into this comparison...and I know some people would oppose..but if I compare Vray3 BF/LC, Corona can be very much faster in certain scenarios (of course, it's missing adaptivity so you do get that stuck noise somewhere,but this is just for now).

Do not except of Corona speed that other renderers don't attain under 'same' conditions. The conditions mostly mean 'same quality'. Yes, I can optimalize fullHD render to minutes in Vray, but at what cost ? Heavy. If we're looking at high-end hi-res stills, it's hours, not matter what, in any engine.

[juang3d]

Mmm, why are you missing adaptativity? With bucket enabled you get adaptativity, maybe not as adaptitive as in other render engines, but it's working preatty well :)

I agree, 3.5k with quality in 20 minutes... it's at least hard if not impossible wiht current cpu's, of course you can use a "real time" render engine, but Corona won't give you those times I'm afraid.

Cheers.

[Captain Obvious]

I need 3.5K less than 20 minutes. 1 Hour or 2 per picture is not usable for the production. Corona has really nice renders but speed is key for me.

As long as a print-resolution image finishes over night, I'm not too bothered about render speed. But if you really need high-res in 20 minutes or less, your only really good option is to wait until Redshift is ported to Max in a month or two. A machine with dual Titans will render a normal interior at 3.5k in less than 10 minutes, I'd wager.

Edit: though keep in mind that Corona is the sort of engine where you need to spend next to no time at all worrying about render settings, and the progressive nature means that you KNOW you will have an image finished after a certain amount of time. Redshift is really fast, much faster than Corona, but you're right back in the V-Ray swamp of managing irradiance cache settings, light samples, anti-aliasing, etc etc etc.

[Javadevil]

I'm shocked that someone is complaining about the speed, Corona is the fastest/quality render engine out there.
20mins for a 3.5k image is nuts !! seriously buy some hardware if you need to increase speed.

[Juraj]

Mmm, why are you missing adaptativity? With bucket enabled you get adaptativity, maybe not as adaptitive as in other render engines, but it's working preatty well :)

Because that's not it and I am not interested in buckets :- ).

[maru]

The progressive adaptivity that has recently been removed was pretty usable.  You could set gi samples to 2 and then most pixels would get only 2 samples and those above the given threshold would get 2*x samples after y passes. It worked pretty well, not sure why Keymaster removed it. I hope because he's preparing an even better version. :)

[rampally]

I need 3.5K less than 20 minutes. 1 Hour or 2 per picture is not usable for the production. Corona has really nice renders but speed is key for me.

As long as a print-resolution image finishes over night, I'm not too bothered about render speed. But if you really need high-res in 20 minutes or less, your only really good option is to wait until Redshift is ported to Max in a month or two. A machine with dual Titans will render a normal interior at 3.5k in less than 10 minutes, I'd wager.

Edit: though keep in mind that Corona is the sort of engine where you need to spend next to no time at all worrying about render settings, and the progressive nature means that you KNOW you will have an image finished after a certain amount of time. Redshift is really fast, much faster than Corona, but you're right back in the V-Ray swamp of managing irradiance cache settings, light samples, anti-aliasing, etc etc etc.

Is that Red shift 3d  really worth buying ???? {a layman Q}

[Utroll]

Is that Red shift 3d  really worth buying ???? {a layman Q}

https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Mercedes_Charles_Outdoor-Black1080P_1200_675.jpg
I you're missing this surrealist touch inaccurate lightning solution provides then yes :D

[rampally]

Is that Red shift 3d  really worth buying ???? {a layman Q}

https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Mercedes_Charles_Outdoor-Black1080P_1200_675.jpg
I you're missing this surrealist touch inaccurate lightning solution provides then yes :D

can you elaborate in brief please ............Thanks

[Captain Obvious]

Is that Red shift 3d  really worth buying ???? {a layman Q}

If you're a Maya or Softimage user, then yes. It's not as accurate or as easy to use as Corona, but it's really really fast.