dbarc

You are not alone.. We are also having some frustrating issues with it - halfway through a project, it suddenly stops updating from our dwg model file for no apparent reason. Also, we are finding detail such as chamfered edges are often lost when importing. As a result we've reluctantly reverted to max 8. I'm sure autodesk will be more than happy to give us our subscription back..

You should be able to select all the keyframes and scale them -100%

This sounds good to me, the only problem being that you'll need to render at 1024 x 576 not 720 using this method otherwise your animation is going to look horribly stretched on a widescreen telly (or even an ordinary telly for that matter). Render 1024 x 576 and Premiere will automatically convert down to 720 x 576 maintaining the proportion (and quality) of the original. I hope that makes sense!

Battersea powerstation (see the still above) became an icon when it was used in the cover art of a Floyd album. The building is also used as a set in the linked film trailer. That's the link. I understand your confusion - I watched the trailer thinking the same thing! Still, cool premise for a film.

If you're outputting for TV, the 4x3 stuff should be pixel aspect ratio 1:1.067, not square. Re rendering widescreen - The trouble is the animation will look squashed on a normal telly - As a compromise we tend to render to pixel aspect ratio 1:1.067 and 720x432 so that the image is effectively widescreen ratio on a 4x3 telly (with black bands top and bottom) Then on a widescreen TV, it will generally automatically zoom vertically to keep the image at the correct proportion. The way commercial movie DVDs work is to contain two versions of the film, one rendered for 4x3 the other for widescreen, and the DVD player automatically detects which one it needs to play.. but I've never done this (or know how to do it I'm afraid!)

yep that is what I mean! I find this kind of composition on skyscrapers frustrating because the shear size is nearly always the most significant architectural characteristic of the building and 2 point doesn't make anything of it. It's crying out for a more dynamic approach.

the image would beneift from tilting up the camera. At the moment it looks top heavy because of the artificial one point perspective. This would also mean you could get the camera down closer to the ground and make more of the interesting ground level features - people, trees etc.. Speaking of trees, they look a bit lifeless without foliage..

Thanks for the response Jeff. Pretty well reasoned really and if I were in your shoes and one of the best effects houses in the world wanted to submit some work I'd be chuffed to bits and hardpressed to refuse them. However.. I still think on balance this competition should be limited to Arch Viz professionals (everyone from one man bands to the likes of Hayes Davidson, Neoscape etc..) Miniscule budgets, ridiculously tight deadlines, architectural designs that change right up to the last minute and the need to satisfy technically savvy and complete lay audiences simultaneously - these are all an integral part of what I do. Weta don't have these constraints - They have a completely different set. Apart from the fact that the end product for both industries is a visual image or animation, VFX and Arch Viz are completely different services which should therefore be judged as such. Still I can see both sides (I hate it when that happens) and just hope that there are many more entries next year (WETA's pulling power could be the upside to their inclusion for me) and subcategories can be put in place as you mentioned above. I'll get hold of a red dress just in case..

I think as long as they were answering an architectural brief, it is up to them how they interpret that and it is completely valid. I guess they were concentrating on making people look afresh at a building that's been a permanent fixture in the centre of Birmingham since the 1960s by giving it a personality. Anyone from Smoothe care to comment? And I would be interested to hear from Jeff why Weta is even in there.. I really don't think it is appropriate - they're from a different industry with an entirely different set of rules, objectives, and budgetary constraints - and I'm pretty sure it would be seen as a travesty if they won.

Smoothe are an arch viz company - that animation is for a housing development. They just chose to use a very cinematic techniques to sell it. I have to say I really don't understand why Weta is in there though. Apart from the massively unfair disparity in budget, Arch viz is about communicating realworld architectural proposals rather than providing the backdrop to a big monkey;)

Glad to hear you solved the problem. Very weird - It should still continue to function with one, even two disks down which shows it's a good idea not to trust in these things too much. Backup is still the best .. backup!

I feel for you - we had a similar experience about a year ago. It was actually a brand new server - the array failed and didn't rebuild. I don't think the company who supplied the hardware ever got to the bottom of it and ended up replacing the whole array. Maybe the problem's with the RAID controller as it should still boot up with one disk down.

hmmm some nice work but I think with a few tweaks it could be alot more powerful (well it's an ongoing project so it's got to be worthwhile giving some constructve crits) : - The computer render and the photographic panorama at the beginning of the movie could be better matched by tweaking levels but mainly by blurring the CGI. It's very sharp - and very CGI - compared to the photography. Alot of the shots have beziered in and out keyframes and, shown back to back, these give a constant stop-start motion to the edit. Also the sequence of shots seems a bit disjointed with cuts from one space to another without visual cues showing how they all fit together. I know it's a teaser so the jumps probably can't be helped but shots could be tied together through similar motion, composition and timing - a dolly back from the kitchen could cut to a similar dolly away from the tower externally.. one constant speed tracking shot could cut to another etc..so there's some visual continuity. Some of the interior stuff *almost* works like this already, for instance the piano room and the shot that follows but they're different lengths and speeds at the moment. And lastly some of the compositions I think could be better, especially internally it sometimes fells a bit cramped - but before I'm accused of being too negative, you only notice the average ones because that straight down shot looks so fantastic Hope that's helpful

Some terrific detailed modelling there. What purpose will the models serve?

I realise you're using the entrance in the brick wall to frame the image but it's not pretty is it? And It blocks out too much of the scheme. I'd be tempted to elevate the camera over it. And as has been mentioned previously, the people are too crude to use in foreground or midground.