Are you asking for a critique?
I don't want to volunteer any comments, if that is not the case.

EDIT - Oh, I just saw your other post. I thought it was a double post. You are comparing the two renders.
How many polygons is that model?

sorry, I don't know why I can't attach 2 files in the same message (I'm a new forum user, you know) anyway this reply let me specify another thing about the size of the two images; actually the Carrara one is 3200 x 2400 px  and the Vue one is 2160 x 1440; that's why the different behaviour of the AA filter to perform similar quality.
The model was taken from the web, I don't remember where and it is in .lwo format

I don't think you can attach two files to the same post, unless you have the pictures on a web server somewhere and link them in that way.
But you can post two times in a row in the same thread and attach a picture to each post.

Welcome to the Forums.

the carrara render looks good IMVHO. I dunno what AA is. perhaps it's similar to AO, as it pertains to GI or IBL.

AA = Anti-Aliasing.
Getting rid of the 'jaggies' (aliasing) on contrasting edges.

yeah, I'm seeing some jaggies in that ferrari render. there is no specific AA setting in carrara AFAIK. I think they quit using that setting when they changed ray dream's name to carrara.

AA is a function of the raytracer sampling. There is a rollout in the raytracer section of the Render Window for AA quality. Not sure what type of filter C5 uses, and I don't think there is a selection for different filter types; I'm guessing Box or Gauss filter.

The object, shadow, and light accuracy settings would also affect the AA of the final image.
If you have Pro and can set the raytracer RPP; higher RPP sampling yields more accurate AA.

A scanliner's ability to AA is very limited, compared to a raytracer's. C5 has both; and a third sampling method too, the photon mapping(which is only fully effective when using the raytracer at the same time).
Basically speaking, more samples = more accurate AA. More sampling methods = more accurate AA. Maybe DAZ'll put FG (Final Gathering) and/or Supersampling into C6 or C7.

EDIT - prode could resample that large image size down with Photoshop or some other Image Editor and let that do the AA. PS does good AA resampling.

Carrara 5 has anti-aliasing features under the render settings, they are: None, Fast, Good, Best

Quote - yeah, I'm seeing some jaggies in that ferrari render. there is no specific AA setting in carrara AFAIK. I think they quit using that setting when they changed ray dream's name to carrara.

No, it is still in there.  It is in the render room on the first tab, You have options ranging from fast to best.  I saet it to best and 1 pixel for both object accuracy and shadow accuracy.  ALso try dropping the filter sharpness to about 70, this makes theimage have a softer look, and make sure you have full ray tracing checked.

oops, sorry about that! I was thinking of another app that useta have an antialias setting, then they dropped it after v. 4. however, it may be possible that the tiff render had smooth (anti-aliased) lines on the ferrari, but when it's converted to jpeg, it may introduce such artifacts along the lines.

I usually use tiff or bmp for textures for that reason.   Jpegs can be too lossy when compressed.

hi all, that's a few minutes setting render made by Cinema 4d R 8.5; I have to say that despite of the excellent speed of the engine (6'21'' at 2000 x 1500 with great AA outcome) I find very difficult to set an appropriate lighting atmosphere in C4D and the result seems not so amazing; that' s let me emphasize  once again that Carrara has easy and useful presets and a very good render engine; at the present  for me it is the best software ever used for photorealistic renderings.
next fight: Carrara versus V ray
stay tuned

The contest (similar settings and outcomes):
Carrara 5    6' 54 at 3200 x 2400 - previous post
Vue Pro 6    22' 58 at 2160 x 1440 - previous post
C4D 8.5      6' 21 at 2000 x1500
......

That is surprising to me.  I did the trial of C4D and C4D render times were much lower than C5 for me. I finally settled on 3dsmax, for various reasons; one of them being that it is has bit lower render times (but not much) than C4D. But honestly, it is very difficult to get a realistic render time comparison; because every app has different features and settings.

I found VRay to have very efficient GI, not as efficient as FinalRender, but not far behind. It also has many render features that C5 doesn't; and a lot more parameters/shaders/etc.; naturally it has a higher learning curve than C5 as a renderer.
Learning curves are, of course, relative: C5 is a dreadful learning curve for me, the GUI seems very haphazard and disorganized to me; but not unlearnable (it is just taking time). Poser's GUI is beyond me; I gave up a long time ago trying to use it. 3dsmax (which is always said to have a terrible learning curve) was much easier to learn for me; it has very few cryptic icons to decipher and is mostly menu driven, mostly numeric inputs. More compatible with my brain patterns, I suppose.

Overall, the more features you activate, the longer the render takes. It is impossible to multiple # of calculations without multiplying render time by a like amount. So a more advanced renderer might be said to be 'slower'; but in reality, it could be much faster (i.e. more efficient) and is just doing many more total calculations; with an end result that a less advanced renderer cannot duplicate.

dvlenk6, I know what you mean, my personal test didn't born to find the ultimate software but to get a comparison between their own outcomes as consequence of simple and easy settings, so that the learning curve gets similar each other and keeps low, thus verifying the response and give a quality judgement; that is so far, to my opinion, a way to compare several software for consumer uses.
ciao

I have a fool proof way to compare and evaluate software.  If I can figure it out without using the manual, it is good for experts.  Then if my wife can figure it out, it is good for intermediate users.  And finally; if my daughter can figure it out, then anyone can... LOL

My daughter learns the softwares faster than I do. :thumbupboth:

I think 'The Ultimate Software' is a chimera. It is more important that you are comfortable with a software and that you get the results that you want with it.

well, I don't forget many applications need too much resources in terms of hardware devices and  capital costs too, so I guess Carrara may be a right choice even for short and cheap animations.
as soon as possible I wanna try
by the way my daughter, 7 yo, is a great Vue easel expert , I do have to recognize