Renderers make a big difference in how your work looks once it is rendered out. At the start of the project I wasn’t aware of the possibility of different renderers, but now I use the physical renderer instead of the standard one. As it turns out, there are many more renderers out there, and an article by Greyscalegorilla compared them.
Physical Renderer
-Part of Cinema 4D as default
-Good for still images
-No longer being developed
-Very slow
-Lights need upgrading
-Overall just doesn’t look great compared to the others
-Good for low budgets as its free
Arnold
-Options for CPU and GPU
-Can also be used in Maxa, Houdini etc
-Used for many feature films
-Frequent updates
-Lots of speed enhancing
-Expensive
-Can be slower than some other alternatives.
-Texture baking
Octane
-Good photorealism
-Fast render speed
-Simple settings
-Custom material nodes
-Tri planar mapping
-Limited by the GPUU
-Stable
-Confusing licencing
-Good for designers
-Starts from $800
Redshift
-Can be very fast
-Production focused features
-Responsive development team
-Supported by cloud render farms
-Higher learning curve
-Can be unstable and buggy
-Requires a NVIDIA GPU
-Good for shiny non realistic things
-Expensive
Conclusion
At the moment, physical renderer is the best for me. I do my work on both PC and Mac, and I don’t have a big budget to be spending on expensive licences, so for now the free one will do.
Bibliography
Ashley, C. (2017). What Renderer Should I Use In Cinema 4D? | Greyscalegorilla. [online] Greyscalegorilla. Available at: https://greyscalegorilla.com/2017/08/what-renderer-should-i-use-in-cinema-4d/?utm_source=Greyscalegorilla+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c4396beed0-AUTOMATION_Intro_To_Cinema_4D_Welcome_Series_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_025cbe1576-c4396beed0-391694169 [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].
Jennie Hawkes 