how photoreal can mental ray get?

[hbiz]

I've seen some amazing things from IRay and maxwell and I was wondering if it was possible to get similar results using GI+FG in combination with mia_* shaders. As a concrete example, would it be possible to get similar render results in mental ray as this maxwell render?

http://maxwellrender.com/gallery/ind...&p=*full-image

I know this is an extremely general question but I was beginning to study mental ray and I wanted to know, before investing alot of study time, if fundamentally, the renderer could achieve similar results (using GI+FG). Also, feel free to reply with mental ray renders of similar photoreal quality.

Thanks for your time.

[Remydrh]

Your limitation on realism is sometimes based on skill. iRay and Maxwell remove some need for knowledge of settings, lighting, etc. But overall, any decent package can achieve photorealism if you know what you're doing.

http://www.mentalimages.com/gallery/...-pictures.html

Scroll down and look at Poseidon, Fight Club, and Panic Room. This isn't arch viz, but the level of photorealism makes it indistinguishable from reality.

http://www.mentalimages.com/gallery/architecture.html

Look at the second entry, the Farnsworth House.

Keep in mind that a lot of arch viz involves a long render. iRay would be faster than Maxwell with similar results if used on a GPU. For mental ray software rendering, take a look at irradiance particles. Not as fast as FG but certainly great for lighting.

[n0rth1sland3r]

one thing about the Farnsworth House is that it looks to have been heavily processed post render...maybe not the best example of what MR can do.

maxwell is cool, but the whole photographic unbiased think is a bit scary until you have machines to crunch it fast enough to get rid of the noise. also, it's simplicity can also be a limitation.

i think out of the box vray can get you to architecturally photoreal imagery faster (hence it's popularity!)...and similar results are achievable w/MR...the process is just more involved... but on the other hand MR is a much more mature and extendable enviroment.

it might have something to do with MR not starting out with archviz as it's focus, but rather film/animation/etc. correct me if i'm wrong....

i think that MR is picking up on this however...and have been "inspired" to create new tools to make them more competitive with a host of biased and unbiased engines cropping up all over the planet.

btw..this is my first ever post, hi everyone!

[Remydrh]

Chances are 99.9% of images that look great have been processed in post. A copy of Lightroom or Nuke can be invaluable.

Vray is great with hard surfaces and is good for stills. In animation Vray introduces a fair amount of grain where mental ray's Rasterizer will not (or even the progressive renderer if given a bit more time).

Your renderer of choice is a tool, not a magic wand. Once you know how to manipulate it far enough, you can get what you want comfortably. Also, with power and extendability comes complexity. This complexity is usually the main complaint I hear about mental ray, similar to what n0rth1sland3r alluded to.

Also, beyond the tool itself, look at support available for the tool. The quality of help you receive is very important when you hit a brick wall.