Realistic enough?

[IC]

Hi Everyone,

Any comments on how I can make this more photoreal?

I think the landscaping lets it down slightly.

Cheers,

Iain

http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=penicuiksm.jpg

[skogskalle]

well its not photoreal... the plants on the ground look very opacitymap-cg-ish, and maybe you should lighten the background landscape a bit, it seems too dark when the house and everything else is so light.

 

excellent pic though, looks amazing. (and in my opinion you dont really have to change anything, but hey, you asked for it)

 

Maybe you should change the perspective. If you look at the nearest part of the house, it looks like its leaning. Some clients have a problem with these things, so if you want to you could download a MAX-script (if youre using MAX...) called Technical Camera from www.scriptspot.com that fixes the perspective.

[IC]

Skogskalle,

Thanks for the comments. Don't get me wrong-I am reasonably happy with it. Just always trying to improve.

The odd angle was the only way I could get the whole frontage in without loads more modelling.

Cheers,

Iain

[trebs]

To me, the whole building looks to be about 3/4 scale. I'm trying to figure out ceiling heights in there. I'm guessing the ground floor is somewhat lower than the lawned area. That aside, and judging by roofline and positioning/scale of the windows, it all looks way too low.

As seems common in viz, the cars and shrubs all look very.. architecturally posed, it seems more attention is paid to those things than the basic modelling of the building. After all, the building is what's being sold here, not another TT.

Sorry If I sound harsh, but I feel that architectural viz in general is suffering from the .. must make it look "photoreal".. syndrome and that often takes priority of having a good, and convincing core model.

 

Despite that, I think this image has potential, keep it up.

 

Regards,

 

Trebledee

[IC]

Hi Trebs,

Thanks for the comments.

I agree the scale looks funny-I thought it was maybe the weird camera angle but if you disagree please let me know what you think it is.

The model fully matches the architectural drawings(plans and sections) so I don't understand the ceiling height problem you see. The ground floor window cills/French Door thresholds are deceptively low.

Also, I feel that if viz (or any other discipline) is moving in any specific direction, it is normal practice to go in that direction rather than criticize. This ensures you can stay with the competition in a market led industry. Am I wrong?

The Marketing people I deal with want prospective purchasers to see nice cars parked outside their potential new home. The idea is that even if they can't identify with it then they can at least aspire to it.

We would all like to stick with our artistic ideals but that's not what laymen like.

Hope I don't seem defensive-I'm keen to learn and want to know how to improve the areas I'm weak in rather than just know what they are.

Regards,

Iain

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

hola IC.

 

i hope you don't mind, but i messed around with your rendering a little in photoshop. i think fixing the parallax made the scale feel better, but imo the car still feels a little large for a TT. marketing people might want a little brighter image than what i wound up with also.

 

 

[ November 10, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: crazy homeless guy ]

[Bret Bullough]

Wow!, Nice tweaks C.H.G.. Can you share your Photoshop tweaks with us? Such as adjusted levels and how you got that soft blured effect?

[Tuninho Prieto]

Hi everybody,

Really nice tweaks CHG, we all want to hear from you !!!

hi IC

About the TT size, I think you must pay attention to camera deformation, wich always makes things near the edges of the image stretch. (if you use blowup render, stretchs a lot !)

You must scale the objets near the edge so they looks fine after render.

About the parallax, I usually keep the target on the same level of the camera, to avoid this distortion, and use the blowup render to crop or enlarge the view.

 

I think the sun angle you´re using don´t enphasize the volumes. I would put it comming from left to right so you can see the main facade hit by the sun, and some faces in shadow. I would also sugest you put some tree shadow in the frontplane. You don´t need to show the tree, just it´s shadow, making the first plane of the image darker and the main object clear. This is a clichê often used, but in some cases it´s very effective to draw attention to the main object.

 

I think your sky is a bit purple (more on the stylish side) and the front bushes looks strange to me.(maybe a local bush ?)look´s like it´s mapped on some organic 3d form.

I would use the tree shadow to make it less noticeble.

 

I think what CHG did was bluring the entourage keeping the main subject clear.

What you say CRAZY GUY

 

Hope have helped

[Joel Gray]

Funny. I decided to tweak this in Photoshop and someone else beat me to it. You've got to be doing something right, we're all playing with your image!

 

Typically, I get hammered by clients for using red cars. The 2 point perspective is a hard-and-fast rule for architectural renderings. But, some people don't mind that third point of perspective. I personally think that it makes the buildings look like their falling inward.

 

Keep up the good work!

 

Joel

 

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Originally posted by Bret Bullough:

Wow!, Nice tweaks C.H.G.. Can you share your Photoshop tweaks with us? Such as adjusted levels and how you got that soft blured effect?

thanks. a friend showed me the soft effect. he read about it in one of the special efx? magazines. duplicate the layer, set the blending to overlay, run a gausion blur of 6 (or whatever your taste), and set the oppacity to 20 (again, whatever your taste). it is supposed to help simulate radiosity be making colors feel like they bleed on to each other when they touch. other than that, i desaturated, and did some doging and burning on the photo where it needed it.

[Bhanu]

Hi C.H.G

 

It is very good information.Recently I started experiments with Radiosity in Viz 4.0 I tried with your tweak settings on one image. Good improvement.

Thanks for sharing.

[IC]

Wow,

retouching is something I know very little on(which is pretty obvious when others see a need for it on my images.)

CHG-I think you have improved my image by at least 100%. Very helpful. Thank you for the info.

Thanks to everyone for the constructive comments-just what I was looking for.

Here's a version with the gaussian blur overlay technique and a few of your other suggestions applied.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=penicuikflats.jpg

 

[don't know how to post images direct]

Iain

 

[ November 11, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: IC ]

[taufux]

erm......... the sky doesn't really match the scene from the pix that u guys post here!!

[3D_IC]

I'm not picking here, but you like strong coloured cars. Look how C.H.G toned the red car right down on your image. Maybe you should tone the tt down a bit. My attention is drawn to the car instead of the building.

 

The tree's in the middle of the foreground are also looking out of place. When a tree grows out of the ground it usually has long grass at its base where the lawn mowers can't get to. This is a good way of blending the tree trunk with the grass.

 

The Image is fantastic tho. I like how you implemented all the tips, well done!