Hi,

1:18 seems good enough

I see very little difference (if any) between 1 and 2, so I agree that render 2 (1:18) looks good enough. 3 has quite a bit of noise. Big improvement over the old engine.

I agree, the second image I think is the best when considering image quality and time to render.

Another vote for 2nd image (1:18). Nice speeds

For web, I agree that 1:18 is good enough. For print or displaying a much larger image, the 2:40 looks even better.

 
I think I see à bit difference between 1 and 2, maybe it’s the shadow. I agree that render 2 (1:18) looks very good. Big improvement over the older rendering.
Best regards,
John.

Same here. Number 2 (1:18). Maybe for bigger renderings the first option shows bigger differences… I always render for print so what happens with the noticable nois in the shadows. But hey, the new results are a big improvement to the old version;-)

Big improvements!
I don’t know which one to choose… Three is badly, so it must be 1 or 2. What causes the differences in render time?

Sure image 2 is fine, but if I had a choice I’d go for image 1 despite the longer render time (time isn’t an issue as far as I am concerned), just so I could be sure I didn’t have to re-render for a higher res later.

On the other hand, if the settings are the same for all 4 images, I am concerned about the lack of detail in the whites in all three new renders. The old engine may have taken a month of Sundays to render, but at least I can see where the whites of the spine and pages finishes and the background begins. As far as the lack of brightness in the last image is concerned, with a bit of tweaking that could easily be corrected. But again, I am working off the assumption that all settings (except the resolution/size) are the same for each image. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

I think too the second image is the best when considering image quality and time to render.

best quality beats time so my vote is 1

Number 2

The side of the (top) book has a better look (darker and more realistic) at the old engine.

Hi Vitaly,
I’ve been asking this for the last 2 weeks but do you know when (roughly) the new release will be available? Cheers. James.

I toally agree with Erique(9) and Burak(13). There’s a lack of detail in the whites in all three new renders.

Keep the good work!

Render 1 is the better render..with the new engine. Reason i say this is because if you look closely at the red, where the first book lays on top of the bottom book, you can distinguish the line between them.
Incidently they way to bright to look believable.. as an artist id have to say id take the old render and place it on top of the render 1 and use a blend mode in PS to bring some that shading back;)
Appreciate ya efforts all the same.

the quality difference between 1 and 2 is barely noticeable so if i was going to use the rendering for the web i’d definitely be choosing #2.

hardly can wait for the next release!

Sorry for being the party pooper but I’d prefer the old one… except for the rendering time

Unfortunately, I prefer the old version. It just seems much more 3D, grounded, and believable.

I agree with the comments that the colors and whites are too washed out with the new rendering schemes. Also, the old version seems to have much better ambient occlusion. While it *is* darker, I’d rather the data be there so I can tweak in Photoshop using curves.

Since it seems like the dev work has already been mostly finished to make the new rendering modes, is it possible to offer users their choice of modes in a preference setting? Would that increase your maintenance overhead too much?

Not being a professional in 3D, but to me the old version blows away the 3 new example renders. I think I would prefer to wait the few extra minutes to get those results we have been getting.. I agree with David if there was a way to add the old into the new preferences.