Rendering Techniques

For Quicksilver, the setting with the most effect was most definitely turning up the shadow quality and intensity. It's one of the biggest out of the few changes you can spot with Quicksilver. Changing the settings for the Quicksilver renderer barely altered the render time, due to the fact that it is not very resource heavy.

While the Arnold renders look amazing, it's pretty difficult to tell the differences between all of these (except for the one that had some sort of error). However, with minimal changes came long render time. Improved took around maybe 3-5 minutes, while High-Quality took at least 8.

For the Scanline renderer, the setting with the biggest effect was changing the types of shadows. In the Low-Quality, Area Shadows are utilized. In Improved, Ray Traced Shadows are used. And finally, in High-Quality, Advanced Ray Traced Shadows are used. However, the difference between Ray Traced and Advanced Ray Traced shadows is so minuscule you might as well just render with basic Ray Traced. The render times in between all of these was also non significant, even with the changes of Ray Traced Shadows.

Summary: 

1. Which renderer produced the best visual results, and why do you think it performed better?

Arnold easily performed the best, in terms of not only soft visuals, but also lighting. The way that the reflections interact with the teapot look so nice. The reason it performed the greatest was due to the fact that the rendering process takes so long. The final, high-quality Arnold render took roughly 15 minutes. It takes this long because it properly utilizes it's resources as efficiently as it can. To do this it takes time, but the output looks great.

2. Which renderer was the easiest to use? Which was the most difficult? Why?

They were all relatively simple to use. The easiest was probably Scanline though. The reason it is this way is because Scanline doesn't have much custimization, so it's easy to select the settings you need and use them. However, on the opposite end is Arnold. This isn't exactly on the renderer, but if you use any lights that aren't Arnold lights, the render will appear completely dark. This means that you have to completely redo your lights, and they all have to be Arnold. Also, the settings are more complicated than Scanline.

3. What differences did you notice in how each renderer handled lighting and shadows?

For the Scanline and Quicksilver renders, you can see that the shadows are there, but are too simple and not realistic enough to create a good enough feel. Also, there doesn't seem to be many changes in between all 3 Scanline renders, meaning that the optimization/customization is not that significant. Arnold handles lighting and shadows beautifully.  Even on the lowest setting (my render had a bit of a problem there for some reason) the lighting and shadows still look so polished and realistic.

4. If you were working on a real project, which renderer would you prefer to use, and in what situation?

I mean it really depends. If I was working on a more cartoony, less thought out scene, then I would most likely go for Scanline. The shading is slightly better than Quicksilver, but significantly worse than Arnold. Now, if I was working on something realistic, I would for sure go with Arnold. You are able to make such beautiful scenes by utilizing your lighting to it's full potential.