Corona Renderer for Cinema 4D > [C4D] I need help!

Rays/s actual sooo low and render time soooo high :(((

<< < (4/4)

UPDATE: after cleaning up the scene in simplyfying some geometry and change some light material, still the rendertime didn’t change at all. It stayed sooooo slow, close to nothingness.

But then I had an idea: Don’t use the VFB renderwindow (what the normal way should be), but use the interactive renderer to see if the scene would act differently…and YES -> it is rendering the passes…!! I couldn’t believe! I used the same render settings like I used before with the VFB…so what is this?

ca. 19 hours of rendertime = 92 passes = 3,69% Noise Level
Rays/s total = ~110.000
Rays/s actual = ~25.000

I mean still it is quite slow (it’s a Mac Mini M1) but at least it is rendering.
Unfortunately I cannot do anything else because the program is blocked with the interactive rendering. And I also don’t dare to click anything because then it would start again from the beginning…ahhhh

So please - what kind of bug is that? Can anybody conclude? Did anybody experienced something similar? How can I fix that?

Thanks! Doc


Hi there,
I've been testing your file, and here are my findings:
-The intensive RAM consumption is due to a huge amount of objects in your scene file.
-Although you have 14+ million polygons, which is a kind of decent amount of polygons, it will be too much for your Mac Mini.
-Rendering scene consumes around 23GB of RAM + OS + Host app + Scene file loading. You'll need more than 32GB of RAM.
-I can also see that all of your Cloner objects are set to work in "Instance" mode instead of "Render Instance." Try always to set your Cloner objects to work in "Render Instance" mode. (except if you're cloning Corona lights)
-You can also try using Corona Proxy objects to improve your workflow and the viewport's performance.
I'll suggest first installing additional RAM if possible (it will depend on your Mac Mini's expansion possibilities.
Then, you can start optimizing your scene file by changing your Cloners' Instancing mode.
You may also want to optimize the objects' geometry to try to reduce the number of objects in your scene file. (more objects in your scene file will slow down the overall performance of the viewport).
I hope this helps.

Hi bnji,
thanks for testing and your reply. I will try your recommendations on optimizing the scene file.

Unfortunately I cannot upgrade the Mac Mini M1 regarding RAM – it is stuck with 16GB.
Well…it looks like a new render workstation is needed…and definitely it will be no Apple. ;))))

Regarding RAM…128GB is of course better than 64GB…but are there any restrictions or constraints concerning Corona Renderer or Cinema4D?
Has anybody good suggestions or is here in the forum a post which shows the best current PC workstation configurations? (price-performance-winner)

Hi there...
You can find some interesting posts here:
(regarding hardware performance)
I hope it helps.

I mean for a serious interior with lots of complexity and a huge number of passes, you're asking just too much from that M1 Mini. I love Macs too, but that's just not something I would try. I am running a 2017 iMac Pro and it holds its own with rendering. In my personal test, rendering the Grapes scene from the content browser, the M1 Mini 16GB renders (8 min) that scene a bit faster than a loaded trashcan Mac Pro 18-core (8.5 min). The iMac Pro renders that scene a lot faster. Somewhere around 3.19 min. Half the time. I think I already mentioned this.

I know a Threadripper CPU will blow mine away, but you will also need to drop serious cash on it. Threadripper Pro 3995WX, 64 cores / 128, $5,489. That's just the CPU. So you have to decide how much your time is worth vs what you can charge your clients. You might find that within a few months, you can earn enough from paid work to pay that beast off. In that case, it's a no-brainer. Drop 8 or 9 thousand dollars on your workhorse. Makes sense.

I will also add that you need to learn what are the minimum settings that you need for Corona to produce the quality your clients need. I know you can't share the image you are working on, but make sure not to overdue the quality settings. There is a point of where the additional passes won't really increase the quality of the image, at least to the human eye. This also leads into the question which you should always ask a client "What is the final image being used for?" For example, if you're rendered image will be printed on a large banner or billboard to viewed from far away, you can get away with very small render sizes. Not only the size of the image, but the number of passes too. Many types of printing processes, such as inkejets, can mask many of the artifacts you may see up close. I also recommend finding out the final vendor that will use your image and asking them directly about the specs for your image. Best way to learn.

A full page ad for Architectural Digest using 150 line screen for images, you need to crank up the passes. Sorry for the rambling post, but my mind won't stop.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version