Opinions needed

[RuiRibeiro]

Hi,

I´m doing this model at the moment. I need your crits about Radiosity, Textures and Lighting.

The software I'm using are Autocad, Lighscape and Photoshop.

Check this out:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

 

Thanx,

RuiRibeiro.

[RuiRibeiro]

Sorry, here the correct link for Image 1:

Image 1

 

Thanx

RuiRibeiro.

[mbr]

I like the model, but it looks a little washed out. Maybe some more contrast, or angle of the shadows? The grass and water(?) seems a little fake and the sky looks a little too monochromatic. If you used a sky image, or a gradient with more contrast you might get some variation with the reflections and some warmth with the light.

Just a personal opinion, but I try to keep the camera as parallel to the ground as possible, especially the views from above ground.

Hope that helps. But the model looks nice, and the close ups could be very nice with a little warmth and contrast. Oh, and maybe add some lighting on the interior to give it depth.

Good start.

[Paul Griger]

Hi Rui,

 

You have a good solid start here. BTW, I couldn’t view #4 for some reason, the pic only loaded half way.

 

There are some things that mbr brought on that I agree with also.

 

1. pic 1 looks washed out. The sky needs to be a little more realistic, maybe a pic with some clouds in it and maybe even a cityscape similar to where this building will be located would be nice.

2. the textures on pic 1 for the landscape, especially the road and the grass, could use less tiling and the grass could use a little more definition. The grass almost looks painted on in one color right now.

3. are the railings self supporting tubes? They appear to lack newel posts.

4. the overall feel of pic 1 seems like mbr stated to lack definition and contrast.

5. the glass widows on the front of the building seem to lack the same reflective glass properties as the top windows at the clerestory. Maybe the windows lower down are just reflecting the flat grey pavement and thus you are getting a plastic feel to the windows.

6. the main wood type texture and the textures in general lack definition. You may need to add some bump to these and maybe even dirty them up if needed.

7. the water is understood as water only because of the bridge and the discerned color. The texture gives the viewer no real impression that this is in fact water. Maybe add a little disturbance and reflection to the water if that is what it is meant to be.

8. is the wood bridge leading to a glass door? Do the doors hinge or slide? it’s hard to discern because of the lack of hardware.

9. the close-ups are nice so that we can see the details, but the camera angles I agree should be more parallel. It may be better to predominately show views that are more realistic to what an actual visitor may see. The funky angles are fun sometimes, but pic 3’s angle for instance would never happen in real life and throws the viewer an immediate hint that makes the pic scream CG.

 

You’ve got a nice start here, looking FWD to the updates.

[nisus]

Hi RuiRibeiro,

 

I like your non-photorealistic approach. For their description and comments of the materials, I think mbr en paul had photoreality in mind. (Or I might be mistaken also...)

 

The lighting is fine, but I agree on their comments on camera angles. I suggest you read the T&T thread about 'avoiding parallax'

 

rgds

 

nisus

[RuiRibeiro]

Hi again,

i'm looking forward to solve the issues you mentioned.

Thanx for your help.

 

c u,

RuiRibeiro.