Can any of you actually explain why Cycles is bad?
Can you explain why it's good ?
the images it produces don't look good.
>>506403
Not many people use Blender or Cycles professionally so you're mostly stuck with shit looking renders. But it can produce very nice results
http://www.creativeshrimp.com/gallery
>>506425
>Fireflies and noise all over the image, even despite being scaled down to below 720p
>nice results
No anon, Cycles does not produce nice results. Use LuxRender instead.
>>506426
All of those renders look pretty good, what are you talking about?
>>506426
Remake this image in LuxRender then you're allowed to give your opinion
>>506431
>Doesn't understand the artist spent A LOT of time in an image editor touching this image up.
>Gaussian blurred to shit to reduce visibility of fireflies.
>Literally the only somewhat decent example that every Blender user posts
Great, your renderer has produced one ok render in its life time that still had to be fixed up in post. *clap clap*
>>506434
Who doesn't fix renders in post?
>>506435
people who use good render engines.
>>506431
looks horrible
>>506434
Lad, you can download that scene from the author's website. There's no photoretouching involved.
>>506437
Ie not lux
>>506437
You mean people who use biased renderers?
Unless you have your own slave computers and are planning on using unbiased rendering then you will almost always have to fix your renders in post unless you are willing to wait the long render times.
>But Muh Octane with 4 titans
And how many people have those?
>>506453
When i take single frame beauty shots (i.e that stupid fucking chunk of ice), i do just wait the long render time. It's worth it in the end.
If you're manually cleaning up noise and render errors in post, you're doing something wrong.
