alambregts
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 19 Dec 2016 14:31

Render[in] Quality

Mon 19 Dec 2016 14:51

Hi there,

I'm wondering what we could expect from the export quality after we bought Render[in]. Now we are running a trial version. Rendering to 4k still gives a pixelated image. (we use standard easy parameter settings)

Is it worth the money?

Thank you for your time.

User avatar
regi
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 21 Apr 2016 18:43
Location: Germany

Re: Render[in] Quality

Wed 21 Dec 2016 18:40

Hi
Although I can not reproduce the pixel issue, I'll give you some thoughts and own experiences about Render[In] and my simple answer to your question is: YES - Is it worth the money !! :)

Next to Render[In], I use different "simple" click and render solutions, such as Shaderlight or Brighter 3D etc...
Additionally to these tools, I use ArtLantis Render Studio and Twilight Render.

All the renderes have their own advantages and disadvantages.

For me it is important that a render is doned after a certain render time. I do not want to work with the render engines, which render 100, 1.000, 10.000 ... passes because I never know if it is worth to wait 500 more passes.
Also I do not want to use render tools which require 248 sophisticated render- or material settings, of which I am not in a position to grasp their meaning or evan can´t translate them into my language :?: :P
So I prefer tools like Shaderlight, ArtLantis or Render[In] (which is the "little sister" of ArtLantis Render).

Render[In] is a most simple tool! - Especially the lighting setup is very simple to handle. This fact was my reason to buy Render[In]. When using other renderTools, I can not count the hours I've often needed to reach any artificial light setup, which works well for any interior render tasks. Additionally I do not have to use any SketchUp geometry as "light portals" to make it possible that sunlight can shine through windows into an interior which is very convenient I think.
My opinion is, there is no tool which is easier or even better for interiors.

Yes, Render[In] is not the fastest render tool although we have to be careful to compare, since render time depends on a lot of factors and only part of the render engine itself and, of course, depends on the performance of your computer as well. If I consider my effort to make a good light setup, I prefer to have less work by myself and prefer to leave my computer working one hour longer.

Like ArtLantis, Render[In] is able to expord PSD files which is a great feature as you get very useful output layers for later post-pro. In addition to the quality render settings - I always use high - you can add Ambient Occlusion which works great and brings great results. If you have noise and do not achieve a good result, this often points out that there is not enough light ? although I have not had this quality problem so far. If you have problems, there is the possibility to open a ticket - I have made good experiences with the support here. Also you can ask for a solution in the forum here - That would benefit us all ;) And there is also the possibility to vary the render settings with custom settings, which has helped me already as well and was guided by the RI support here...

Another advantage of Render[In] is it´s material render quality and it´s really outstanding working bump mapping which works much better than most other render plugin solutions.
Render[In]´s iVisit360 panorama featue (for panoramic and virtual tour presentations) works great and simple!
It is connected to your liked SU scenes.
In my eyes a big disadvantage is that Render[In] uses only one single light model for exteriors, which is always connected to the shadow settings of SketchUp. This one light model can be compared with "physical sky" lighting elsewhere which has soft sun shadows at least. Here I miss HDR lighting for example.
Another disadvantage of Render[In] is that you can not use HDRs for background as well. - This means, that your model can not reflect an HDR environment which always looks pretty flat. All what should be reflected must be added as geometry in the SU model itself - for this reason I avoid using Render[In] for exteriors often.
One more disadvantage of Render[In] is, that it has no access to SketchUp´s "Two-Point-Perspective" camera which I often need. Render[In] has it´s own Two-Point-Perspective view feature but this is not identical to SktchUp´s and prevents a possible graphical combination of Render[In]´s render output with native SketchUp output like hidden lines for example

I think it is correct to use multiple tools !
So you get access to the best, or easiest or fastest solution for your current render task. My currently prefered "mix" is Shaderlight and Render[In]. Within my "mix" Render[In] is the specialist and my recommendation for interiors and scenes, which are lit with artificial light only...
Yes, for me, for my tasks and for my workflow, Render[In] is worth its price and a great supplement to my needed render options!

I hope, all that will help you for your decision

Best, Regi
Last edited by regi on Wed 28 Dec 2016 08:26, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
pedrorojas
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu 28 Jan 2016 02:02
Location: Venezuela

Re: Render[in] Quality

Fri 23 Dec 2016 18:54

Hello :D :D
How are you Regi?
I hope it's ok ;)
I share with you, your opinion in general 8-) 8-)

I usually also work with Artlantis (Studio and Render) just like Render IN

Being both extraordinary rendering engines, very easy to use and with excellent results.

... like other engines, we also have flaws to overcome and aspects that in the immediate future I am sure will be solved.

Especially Render IN 3, but we must remember that this new version is in its beginning, there are details that little by little the developers are leveling, so that our engine can work more properly.

... it is indicated to comment that since we started with Render IN version 1, to date, changes, adjustments, improvements have been extraordinary.

We must also keep in mind the machine that we are using to perform the rendering, the new updates of any engine, require having powerful machines to do a good job.

The use of resources such as: image editors or texture preparation helps to achieve a better result.

In Render IN 3, we must understand how to configure a good lighting, place the exact camera, edit the textures ... finally all those details that allow us to achieve a `good result.

... this is done, mastering the program, practice and more practice, then experience leads us to achieve it caddy day better.

This is a rule for Render IN and any other engine

For now, this younger brother of Artlantis, solve promptly any need we have and perhaps the most immediate that we have to solve, is the clarity of visualization in the previous window.

... For those who start with this engine, it must be uncomfortable not to be able to see everything exactly as it should be ... for those who know it, experience helps us to know what is happening in the image (window) ... and That's how we solve it.

I suggest, have a good time, and expect the next updates

A hug
Pedro
Pd: Excuse me for my English ;)

User avatar
regi
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 21 Apr 2016 18:43
Location: Germany

Re: Render[in] Quality

Sat 24 Dec 2016 20:10

Thank you Pedro - as allways I´m glad to hear from you!!
yes everything is ok here and I hope also with you as well !

These are correct and well fitting thoughts and views, which you supplemented here - thanks for these!

If I get it together, one or more tools are only as good as the level of experience, which a user has built up over the time ;-) ... which should not discourage a beginner but rather stimulate him/her to try, to play, to test and to grow eventually .

Please do not apologize for the fact that English is a foreign language for you - also for me - so everything is good as it is. Google translate is my companion whenever I am here ;) ;)

Happy Christmas and Best Wishes
Regi

Return to “Feedback”