ronll

My work has been almost exclusively stills. But I now have a project that needs a short animation, actually just a quick morph. I have no trouble making the .avi. However, it seems there are a lot of variables on playback depending on among other things, what the user is playing it on. Quicktime avi's end on the last frame, but Windows media player reverts to the first frame on ending. Because I can't control what the end user is going to use, is there a way I should be embedding the avi into an .exe? Or should it be putting it into a Director file or VB app or other? How do you distribute an animation to your end users?

If they are recognizable, it's not that hard to photoshop them into unrecognizable. I do this a lot and it is easier than you might think. Just change a few key things like head shape, jawbone location, cheekbones, chin size etc. It's actually kind of fun. On these, I made them look a bit happier by moving the corners of their mouths up just a tiny amount.

Texas Instruments TI44a. TV as monitor, cassette tape as storage. Wrote my own programs in Basic. Seems like that had to be in 1982 or '83. Correction: it was a TI99-4a

Just as a followup, I checked with my service provider and my DSL service is rated at 1.5Mbps. But they now have fiber optic available in my location and for $1 less per month, I can get 12Mbps and free long distance. I just have to buy a new modem at $99. So it pays to check with your isp every once in a while.

I'm also on WinXP 32b. Are you saying the download of the 1.8gb zip file only took 15 minutes? I just tried it again with a different browser and it says 3 hours and 40 minutes, this on DSL.

Has anyone had any luck downloading the new free PS beta? It's a 1.8gb zip file which takes hours to download. I've downloaded it twice now and the zip file won't extract properly. I even went back to an older command line version of pkzip and altho it tried, it had a lot of files with checksum errors.

I almost always use procedural textures for brick rather than maps. If it is really close to the camera, I might model it. But I find mapped textures for things like brick usually look cartoonish and flat. But then my rendering engine is an old DOS text-based program that allows me to write my own textures. (Of course these two examples are low res jpegs so the texture isn't really obvious here.) http://www.ronlloyd.com/Renderings/lakefrn.jpg http://www.ronlloyd.com/Renderings/curtr10.jpg

In my office, these are two different types of projects; renderings or "pretty pictures" and view analysis images which are usually not very pretty.

I don't think GPS is going to be nearly accurate enough for camera location. It can be off by several feet. In my cases I try to measure the exact location, including height, of the film plane (ccd plane) relative to the walls, window frames, etc. A few inches off in the location of the camera can make a big difference. As to lens, I will use a fixed lens (no zoom) and test it in my office by taking pictures of a wall and then measuring the field of view and do the trig to the film plane. You cannot trust the manufacturer's stated FOV.

I've done several projects involving potential view obstruction by proposed construction. In a few of these cases, I not only did the imaging and photography, but also had to testify in court as an expert witness on the subject. The method always involved taking very accurate legible notes on camera location, lens measurement and testing, methods of 3D imaging involved, and hiring surveyors to document juxtaposition of existing and proposed structures. In all measurements in the process there will be small errors which accumulate when combined in the final result, making it difficult to state what the margin of error is going to be. And obviously the closer an object is to the camera, the more important the error is, but also the easier it is to measure accurately. Around here, views of mountains are important. The locations of mountains can be pretty effectively measured from Google Earth, but if you are off by a couple hundred feet, they will probably still see the mountain. In the cases where I testified in court, it had a lot to do with the skill and preparation of the attorneys involved. In one case the opposing attorney was the same attorney who had been on my side in the previous case. So on cross, he knew how well prepared I was so he had to resort to trying to show bias on my part because I had been hired by the defendant. But ultimately it comes down to a judgement call on the part of the judge anyway (none of these had juries). BTW, my fee for legal testimony is triple my normal hourly rate and is written into all contracts as such and is pretty much accepted as normal in the legal community. In one case, my scheduled time was delayed by four hours while I sat in the courtroom, and then I was on the stand for five hours the next day. Altho I hate testifying, it pays well.

Altho I don't use Revit, I kind of like it because it convinces firms that in-house rendering is harder than the salesman told them it would be and then they give up and call me.

If you haven't already, watch the interview with Alex Roman That film took almost two years to produce, and his point in making it was to explore film making, art and architecture, not CG technique. There is also the struggle that many of us have, me included, of doing work that is commercial enough to make a living, while in our hearts wanting to do art.

As you've found, there are not many books specifically on architectural photography "how to", and when you do find them they may only have one or two chapters on comp, lighting, color, etc. Too much about equipment. And one of the enduring ironies is that the good architectural photographers work very hard at keeping people out of their photos. Yet in our business, the clients always seem to insist on MORE people. I really detest putting people in images except sometimes one or two for comp or scale. Look for a couple of books by Norman McGrath and others by Michael Harris. Not much but it helps.

Several years ago I was hired by the U.S. Navy to provide an image of the interior of a proposed new research and testing facility at a sub base. When I asked for the plans, they told me that they were classified and they couldn't release them to me. When I asked how I was suppose to know what to image, they said, "Make it up. Just show a couple of pools, some tanks and lots of pipes and valves." So I did, they were happy and paid me. Strangest job I've ever done.

Maxer, I believe he is asking about bird's eye views, in which case the background is mostly land, not sky. It's one of the reasons I try to discourage aerial views with my clients, unless they want to go to the expense of having a professional aerial photo taken, which then kind of dictates the angle, lighting, and quality of the rendering. I usually try to crop them close to the model so as to minimize this problem. I suppose you can get away with using an image from Google Earth, but it is pretty low-res and I'm not really sure about the copyright issues in doing that.