Verified Views - Advice from UK cg'ers please..

[4DM]

Hi All,

 

Some advice needed here from anyone experienced in producing Verified Views in the UK particularly.

I have looked in the Archives too, but I would also appreciate some direct, and up to date, help.

 

I have been asked to do 3 Verified Photomontage views of a site in a fairly residential area here in the UK.

 

Not done the "verified" bit before, but I been in contact with a surveyor and photographer who have done so previously, so am happy with their level of expertise and experience, and we are good to go sometime next week.

 

I am OK with building and rendering the accurate model, obviously, and pretty confident with matching it to the photographs accurately enough, especially with the GPS info. I will have at my disposal.

 

The thing that bothers me is the quasi-legal aspect of it all.

 

-Is there yet any "Standard" to which Verification must be measured?

 

-Is there any particular set process, apart from the obvious methodology. which needs to be observed, or recorded in any particular way?

 

-Are there any defined liability issues which should be addressed?

 

-Does anyone who has done this have, or need to have, any Professional Indemnity Insurance? Is this advisable before proceeding? If so, from where, and how much was it?

 

-Has anyone here experienced, or know of anyone who has experienced, any dispute or legal problem after the views were produced ?

 

-Does anyone have a disclaimer attached to their work ('Artist's Impression'....'As accurate as can be based on info. provided', etc) that they successfully use, and could possibly pass on to me?

 

Many thanks for any replies - I am fairly confident that this should be OK, after all, how would anyone dispute the views, unless they repeated the very exercise I am about to do?

 

All your thoughts and advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Danny.

[3dp]

first off i'd try and speak to the guys at hayes davidson as they kind of invented this

i belive they have a booklet on how to go about this

 

anything i get involved with that is for planning is always based firmly on physics and is always noted up

 

so example say a background plate is stitched and the aspect ratio shifts

i note the work flow and all source files

 

the 3d camera will never perfectly match a physical camera so they tend to be by eye unless you are on video then it's match moving time

 

basically i'm confident to shout down a barrister with "given the information this is the result - can you do better?" although it has not come to that yet i have visted two planning depts and illustrated the methodolgy behind a project (and in once instance picked up another project through it)

 

of course some developers become a little concerned when the true extent of the projects are revealed incontext and may ask to fudge - do not bend to the wishes of the paymaster - it will come back and bite you

 

to do a decent piece of work you need accurate info

a proper cad survey with levels not the usual os supperplan

always better that you take the photos and filsms yourself or at least be there to note details

 

and here is the top tip of the day

also photgraph the rfelcted views to add in as a reflection plate on glass

looks at images on here that have dull glass simply because there is nothing other than and sky and trees - you get the idea

regards

3dp

[4DM]

Thanks for your reply, David, and for the useful tips and information.

I wonder if you might be able to answer the following questions?

 

Do you then submit any written documentation, validating the process, with your images?

 

Do you put any disclaimer on the work, and if so, what and how?

 

Do you have PPI insurance, in case something goes pear-shaped?

 

Sorry if I sound neurotic - probably because I am!

 

Cheers,

 

D.

[Iain Denby]

 

the 3d camera will never perfectly match a physical camera so they tend to be by eye...

3dp

 

Surely this turns a *Verified*photomontage into just a photomontage. I don't see the point of collating and using accurate info all along the way to have the final part of the jigsaw created 'by eye'.

 

I think the biggest proble occurs when the proposed building is in the distance and takes up a small percentage of the photograph...In Photoshop, one simple nudge of the arrow key on your keyboard could move the building 2m in real world, and this could be critical.

[3dp]

dibbers said:

Surely this turns a *Verified*photomontage into just a photomontage. I don't see the point of collating and using accurate info all along the way to have the final part of the jigsaw created 'by eye'.

 

hi iain

a fair comment but by recording a workflow the smoke and mirrors perception of the planning public can be dissapated a little

when i work these projetcs up i prefer a overcast even dull sky so i can use a diffuse lighting and drop a project into a backing plate so as to say "look i've always been here" and and minmise the impact where a marketing image would have " look at me look at me!!"

 

workflow truth be told is more or less the same in so far as the models at set up in max and i endevor to get the 3d camera as close as the package will allow with the 3dcamera set at the exact location the photos were taken

(of course this goes to hell if it's a stitched image and thats where the eye comes in)

 

as for disclaimers and insurance i have not bothered and when there has been a query (as long as i'm paid for it ) i'm happy to visit the planner (hence my picking a little bit of extra work) and explain why night is day

i confident enough and been at long enough to have the chops to know when to say no

 

my own work is based pretty much on the creation of a 3d enviroment and so very little post work other than levels and colours and some nuding around occurs so when someone is telling me the a person is too small or that building is too big etc it's all in the model (maybe the models is wrong - ha!)

 

you'll never get a 100% accurate reprenstation but you can get 95+% there no trouble most times

[3dp]

oh and things get real fun when it comes to video because no one has the budget for dv or film and mini dv footage is like trying to be a surgeon wearing hockey gloves

[STRAT]

hi guys.

 

my boss has been asked by planners for verified images of a job we're doing. but my boss knows absolutely nothing about it, but he thinks great, why not, we can do that.

 

this is making me very nervous.

 

after reading this thread does anybody have any extra input? (uk if possible please)

 

as Danny originally asked....

 

* what exactly does it involve

 

* what proffesional liability issues are involved? what about indemnity insurance, is this a must?

 

* exactly how accurate does it need to be? what process is involved? i can obviously vouch 100% for our scheme, but how it sits on the site 100% accurately? that i certainly cant.

 

for example -

 

if i had to model a cube 10 foot square, sitting on a flat surface, i could do that no problems and reproduce an image almost 100% accurate, but i certainly wouldn't put my name to it being 100% precise matched up to the real built thing.

 

as mentioned, computer cameras aren't accurate, messing with photoshop is also dangerous.

 

i'm trying to explain things more clearly to my boss. at the end of the day i produce artist impressions. most accurately i pressume, but i know for a fact they're certainly not 100% accurate.

 

can anyboy spread more light on this please?

[Simon Moir]

The Hayes leaflet goes into some detail, it's worth getting. It is mostly common sense, and recording your working methods. This article appeared in BD last year.

[STRAT]

that article is fantastic. hopefully it'll convince my boss it's just too specialist a process for a firm of architects to carry out. it involves a lot of documentation to be created, and a shed load of time accurately plotting and correlating your camera possitions using GPS and so forth. and of course, if you mess it up slightly then you are liable.

[colinsmith]

I've never had to do this in a visualisation project, but from what comes up in my day job work, this seems to be much more about record keeping than any change in the workflow.

 

Some thoughts

 

What happens with optical distortions in the original photo?

Is it good enough just to record the lens and focal length and leave it at that? Or do you need something more technical?

The photos in the article seem to have pin-cushion distortition and the rendered images do not seem to have been "corrected" to match that (I know, the images are too small to say for sure...) but how is that stuff dealt with?

 

If accuracy is paramount, are you not looking at a full 3d survey of the site and modeling and photo-texturing all the buildings etc so there is no compositing stage to mess things up? There'd be difficulties in that approach too, but anythign else would seems to be easy to argue as having some estimates in the approach.

 

Has anybody taken photos of a completed project from the same angle as a visualisation shot they did before construction and seen how they compare?

I'm planning to give it a go if/when a client actually builds something, but I'm a bit scared....

[pauldoherty]

Check out The Landscape institute

They have a set of guidelines called

 

"Guidelines for Landscape and Visual

Impact Assessment; Second Edition"

 

I think they are priced around £35.00 STG

[4DM]

STRAT,

 

I wanted to PM you about the VVs, but your box is full!

 

Cheers

 

D.

[STRAT]

STRAT,

 

I wanted to PM you about the VVs, but your box is full!

 

Cheers

 

D.

 

great. please do so. i've just emptied my mail box