Diego Rosales

You can run a simple script that assigns a random color to objects AFTER they have been created. Something like: for o in $* do ( o.wirecolor = random white black ) Diego

In the dialog box ("browse image for output") where you choose the name and file format for the rendered image. When you select a tiff file and save, an additional window comes up where you choose specific settings for the tiff. If that doesn't happen, look for a "setup" button in the first window.

In the "browse images for output" dialog box. After saving, a little window comes up where you can set the dpi. Also: Photoshop > Image > image size. Diego

The "X" key. It happens to me all the time.

Try downloading the demo. It works in winxp as well. Diego

or you can... "myMatArray = for obj in $* where obj.material == collect obj" that's an array with all the objects with a material assigned to them. You can then use the array for whatever you wish. Diego

You could look for a script that makes all lines renderable. Presto. Or you could just attach all lines with the same thickness and then click on renderable. Diego

Extrude the text without converting! Diego

I'd boolean out the shape from a high-sudv plane. Then you have the shape with enough subdivisions for a bend to work smoothly. Else, rhino can do the trick. /Diego

In terms of usability, I would consider setting up the page so the user doesn't have to load a full 1024x2800 image at once. That's just overkill for low-bandwidth connections. Take also for example the fact that the people who will be interested in your work might not have a big graphic display like some of us, and might be running at a much lower resolution (1024x768). Anyway, even at 1600x1200 it looks huge. An important point is that people will feel much more confortable (and will spend more time looking at your work) if they "feel" they are in control of what they see at a given time. I would make the index more informative and try to cut the information (text, images, etc) into "chunks" delivered at user's request. Lastly I would make the links clickable and not just an image. This could be helpful: http://www.useit.com /Diego

This is outrageous!! Doing arch viz? Why model your walls when you can buy them prefab!! Short budget? Need a plane? No problem!! (At this price I would also consider buying the real-life) I don't know where to point my fingers, to the site owners or to the people who pay for them. As said, at this rate I'm retiring tomorrow. /Diego

Hey Arnaldo! Nice image! I really like the overall atmosphere. Some things I would change: 1. Make sure the camera and target are in the same height so as to avoid parallax (3-point perspective). Keep the camera on eye-level, or at least not facing the edge of the countertop. 2. Use a radial falloff for the spots (modify panel > light cone rollout > falloff) in order to soften the bright circles projected on the floor. 3. The space is being lit too evenly. Try darkening the entrance a bit, in order to "see" the spotlights working and also for some contrast. Judging by the angle of the sun, I would give a hint of red to your exterior light and a more artificial halogen-type color for the spots. 4. The width of the stool tubes seem to be way too thin, as if they were going to break when I sit. 5. If you're looking for realism, I would change the reflections on the door either by giving a bit of glossiness or a soft bump. 6. The way the painting and the rug are chopped by the camera makes my eye go straight out of the composition. Reframe your camera so as to avoid this. I don't know what software setup you're using, but you could also try a different exposure setting. Could you post your software specs? Best, /Diego

What can be said? It looks terrific!! Well done!! :ebiggrin:

Great images as usual. Needless to say, it's obviously a difficult lighting setup. One thing that I find a bit strange - not only in the second, as you mentioned - is the generic way light is filling the space, especially if having such a special arrangement of lights. I would've expected to have some romantic spots around the light 'flowers' whereas the rest would be a little bit darker. Generally, the light fixtures look more decorative than really participating in the lighting composition. In my opinion, that's part of the problem with the image showing the exterior. What's beautiful about shooting at dusk is the subtle reddish cast throughout the space. I believe a different interior lighting setup could've let this happen. That's why the exterior looks flat or out of context - like a painting stamped to the window. EDIT: The tension of the perspective being *almost* 1-point could've been avoided with a full-frontal view of the fireplace - since the space is somewhat symmetric. But then you're not facing the exterior and it could be a bit claustrophobic. Did you try it? What happened? These are obviously great images and I'm sure you are very aware of what is missing and what's not. Take care, /Diego [ September 13, 2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Diego Rosales ]

Phil, Overall, the images look good. One thing that really jumps is the interaction of the Rothkos with the space. They tend to look better in uncluttered/muted spaces. Anyway, that's a decision of the designer. Unless those are copies, the sales guys must be paid REALLY good!! The aspect ratio looks good on the first image, but on the seminar it looks as if it's showing too much. For this image, I would try to darken the shadows a bit, while making the exterior illumination stronger. I'm no big fan of 3D people since they almost always look stiff. I would've done them with pictures. /Diego