The eternal question - Corona or V-Ray? Let’s solve the mystery and talk about the
differences between the newest versions of the software. Let’s start from the Frame Buffer. I will start with the interactive rendering
in the frame buffer. As we use it every time during the production
process, it is important to compare this in both render engines. I tested the interactive rendering based on
this exterior scene on my PC. In Corona 9, it took around 9 sec to get the
first look into the image while in V-Ray 6 it took about 45 sec. I’m using the default setting in both render
engines by the way. It’s a big difference, it took 5 times more
in V-Ray. In general, I prefer how the Corona Interactive
Rendering works. As I start and stop my interactive previews
many times during the production process, it extends my working time quite a lot because
of that. To be honest, I didn’t expect such a big
difference! On the other hand, in V-Ray Frame Buffer,
we have some cool options that we don’t have in Corona. I’m talking here about the masks, f.ex. Cryptomatte or MultiMatteElement that we can
use later on in the V-Ray Frame Buffer. In Corona, unfortunately, we do not have this
option. We have a mask render element but we cannot
use it in the frame buffer, only in the post outside the max. Anyway, it’s a big advantage for V-Ray as
we can quickly make some adjustments inside one software. It is really helpful especially in projects
when we do not have time for going forward and backward to the 3rd party software like
Adobe Photoshop or Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve. We can easily select the objects we want the
layer to be influenced by. Another thing that is missing in Corona is
the Background layer in the Frame Buffer. So in V-Ray, we can add the photo background
to the image. In this case, I will try something similar,
so the sunset photo. It’s obviously not perfect yet. You can see these white borders around the
palms for instance. It’s because it’s automatic and we don’t
have so much control as in PS for instance but I imagine there will be improvements in
the future. Also, we don’t have a Proportion Guide in
Corona as we have in V-Ray Frame Buffer. However, this is not such a big deal for me
as instead of using it in the Frame Buffer, I can still use the ImageCompHelperScript
in the viewport which I prefer to be honest. Btw, if you want to get the script, you can
download it from my website as it’s hard to find online. Link in the description below the video. On the other hand, what is pretty cool about
the Corona now and V-Ray doesn’t have, we don’t have to struggle with setting up the
Highlight Compression anymore as it’s automatically added in the default Tone Mapping. And it’s done with the ACES Output Transform
layer. Other options in the Frame Buffer are pretty
similar and we can get similar results, just the naming is different or there are some
minor differences. The times when the lightmix was available
only in Corona are long gone. Now, it’s available in both render engines. However, there are still some issues I would
like to talk about. First of all, I think that lightmix in Corona
works slightly better. Let’s say I set a specific color of the
light. If I want, I can easily copy colors from different
lights by simply dragging the colors. It makes the process way faster and it is
easier to set up the desired effects for me. While in V-Ray, I cannot do this. I need to do them one by one. It is a quite big issue for me as I like to
copy the colors of lights to have them in similar tones if I need to. Also, I found that when working on the extreme
values of IES lights, it seems like V-Ray has some troubles in lightmix so we need to
work around and change the values. You can see it here. It happens when I have the IES light in the
scene but it is turned off or the value is close to 0. You can see that the intensity of the light
is pretty strong as it’s pretty bright with a value of 1. If I would do the intensity 100 times smaller
in the lighting settings everything will be fine. Here there is a bit different approach in
Corona and V-Ray. V-Ray gives you more options to optimize the
rendering time. While Corona focuses more on a user-friendly
interface. Both options have their ups and downs, f.ex.
in V-Ray the final rendering time can be lower if you set up the optimal render setting for
a specific scene but in Corona we can get realistic results faster, at least for me,
but it comes with the longer render times. I won’t talk more about this here as I created
the videos where I explain the render settings in Corona and V-Ray for both visualizations
and animations, so if you are interested check them out. I’ll put the links to all of them in the
description below the video. For the render times, I did quick tests on
the scenes from our Visualization Training. I’ll put the link to the course in the corner
in case you want to check it out. Firstly, I compared the results of the images
after rendering for 10 minutes. Here is how it looks. On the left-hand side, we have the output
from Corona. After 10 minutes, the noise level is around
10%. There are 22 passes already rendered. The output is not bad if we consider the short
rendering time but there is a quite big noise from the light here still visible. But it definitely will be enough for testing
purposes. On the right-hand side, we have the output
from V-Ray. There are already 72 passes finished. The noise threshold is equal to 0.014. The quality is not great, we are missing the
details. I think that after the same time, the quality
is actually worse in this case. But let me show you the second test. The next one is after around 35 minutes. I used the default setting for both scenes
to make it easier to compare. But note that we can change some things and
optimize settings, especially in V-Ray. Here is the output from the Corona. The noise is around 5.5% and 75 passes are
rendered. Please note that this is before the denoising
so it will look better. Anyway, we should render a little longer to
send the final, high-res image but it will be good enough for the previews for instance. 35 minutes per render is actually a pretty
good result! Let’s move to the V-Ray now. After more or less the same time, the V-Ray
image is finished. It reached a 0.005 value for the noise threshold
which is typically the noise we can use in final images. It rendered 197 passes in total. However, the quality is not good enough and
the denoising makes the image miss the details. But in V-Ray, I would go rather with the bucket
image sampler rather than progressive for finals. I set the noise threshold to 0.005 to get
a similar result as previously to make the comparison easier. Here, you can see that the time and results
are way better. We spend around 40 minutes rendering but we
have much better quality. It’s not ready for the final image yet but
it’s good enough for the previews for instance. Additionally, I rendered the image with the
Irradiance map as a primary engine which is generally the quickest method. And it took only a little more than 23 minutes
to finish it at the noise threshold level of 0.005. But you need to remember that it is not possible
to use lightmix with these settings. So to sum up, we have much more possibilities
in V-Ray to get good results quickly. Btw, I didn’t include V-Ray GPU here, so
let me know in the comments if you would like me to do the video about rendering using it. Let’s talk about the Procedural clouds,
as this option is available in both render engines now. It’s pretty similar in terms of use, the
difference is that in v-Ray we have a clouds option in VraySun while in Corona we have
it in the CoronaSky and we can adjust it in the material editor. What is cool, using the same values gives
us the same results which can be helpful if you use both render engines and want to get
a similar output. The naming of course varies slightly but this
is not a big deal. However, in Corona, we have an extra option
to create plane tracks called Contrails, and in V-Ray, it’s not available. But this is probably a matter of time. You can notice that the results are quite
similar but it differs in the area of the sun. Let’s take a closer look. In V-Ray, we can see the clouds on top of
the sun while in Corona the clouds are behind. I like what they tried to achieve in V-Ray
but it doesn’t look super realistic yet. I’m sure it will be much better in future
versions of the software. If you take a look at the effect in real life,
there is more variety, sort of different opacity on the clouds in front of the sun. In V-Ray, it all looks the same, the clouds
in front of and behind the sun. Btw, back to the differences in Frame Buffer,
when we want to get the close-up render, in Corona we can use the 2D Pan Zoom Mode while
in V-Ray we need to use the Real Zoom option in the Frame Buffer which I don’t really
like as it’s easier and faster to navigate the preview through the viewport for me. Both render engines are great and have a lot
of potential to help us create beautiful works. They have quite different specifics though
and it all depends on what you need from the software. So I would say that V-Ray is better for exterior
images while Corona is perfect for interiors. Also, V-Ray is great for large-scale, professional
projects, especially when you show a bird's eye view of the city. On the other hand, Corona is great for detail
shots in my opinion as it gives slightly more realistic outputs. Besides, there are some options that are available
in Corona 9 now and there are not available in V-Ray, f.ex. shutter curves for motion blur or edge trimming
in Chaos Scatter. Again, it’s probably a matter of time and
I think we will see them in the future version of V-Ray. There are also some technical aspects you
may want to consider. Corona uses only CPU rendering, so in this
case, you need a good CPU to be able to work efficiently. V-Ray on the other hand has two options, that
you can choose from. You can additionally use V-Ray GPU and if
this is the case, you’ll need one or multiple strong GPUs to speed up your render times. If you want to learn more about computers
for 3d artists, watch my video on this topic, I’ll put the link in the corner and in the
description below the video. In terms of the final output, I prefer Corona. However, this is a personal choice so your
opinion may be different. For me, it’s just easier and faster to get
the desired effects in Corona. However, for people who use V-Ray more, it
is propably not an issue. I’m not sure why it’s that but my images
from Corona have this extra touch, I like them better! Btw, let me know in the comments if you found
some other differences that are important for your workflow. Now, let me show you the pricing for both
render engines. So we have Commercial and Educational plans
for both render engines. In Corona, for commercial use, we can choose
from two options while V-Ray has one additional option dedicated to bigger businesses. The price for Corona Solo is 26,90€ per
month if you choose to be billed yearly or 34,90€ per month if you choose Corona Premium. If you choose to pay monthly, here are the
quotes for both plans. On another hand, V-Ray offers plans for 34,90€
per month when billed yearly, 52,90€ or 44,90€. Here is how the prices look when you choose
to be billed monthly. The V-Ray Enterprise plan has only an annual
option though. What is cool, Chaos offers educational licenses
for lower prices. Here are the options for both render engines. So to sum up, Corona is more beneficial financially. In general, I think they are pretty similar
and we can create outstanding works in both render engines. Besides, if you know V-Ray, you can easily
and intuitively learn Corona and vice versa. Also, both render engines are constantly developing
and becoming more and more better and similar. If you want to learn visualizations from start
to finish in both of these render engines, join our training. Also, if you want to learn more, watch my
other videos. Here are my picks. Bye, bye!
