Don't know how to feel

[jackb602]

Iand # 3 staring at the empty ocean.

 

For the record, that's Lake Michigan. Sorry, but as a lifelong Chicagoan I couldn't resist.

 

Jack

[WAcky]

That was crap. The only VFX "STYLE" they had in there were the clouds and grossly out of context objects. A bird fine, not a bad idea. A water drop? Who cares!? I dont want to see how "well" they can shade a water drop while im supposed to be looking at this building. And then looking at a pool for over 5 seconds(?) what a waste of time. And then these dandelion things that can go through glass and get in the way again.

 

That was the cheesiest thing i have ever seen. And after it had ended i still hadnt seen the full building in daylight. Materials and lighting were horrid. Bloom was horrid.

 

Why was this thing about how they could cram a few effects into to be "the best" arch vis video and not about just admiring the 'beauty' of the buidling.

 

What an utter waste of time. I want that 3 minutes of my life back. Do you think i can sue them for this? heheh

 

/rant

[Amen]

Hi, I think they even used moving Rpcs for the couple in the loft.

 

I mean, come on, you use all those fancy composting software, houdini and flame and are not capable of having 2 actors in front of a green screen.

 

I saw a lot of cooler stuff from neoscape and I think those were a couple years old.

 

The article makes them sound like great heroes - but only to some one not familiar with archviz. Those who know a little about it and the common timeframes for projects involved can only shake their heads in disbelieve and laugh at such a slow project with a mediocre result for a high end viz.

 

I am not impressed.

 

Jan

[RodT]

I was expecting a let down before I started watching the Q-time from the comments in this thread. Wow was I ever wrong. I would have never expected to see something quite so bad. This is a marketing film? I was left with no idea what kind of living space would be offered. No sleeping quaters, kitchen, etc. all those items the buying public wants to see. The imagary of the dandylion seeds looking for a place to light and start growing made me feel as if this building was a huge weed so lifeless as to not even provide enough nature to offer the smallest of footholds. The work that I see here certainly offers the client more value IMHO. This should be in every presentation of how NOT to spend marketing money.....

[gabrielaca]

TIP

next time the VFX on holywood guys look down on you because you´re JUST an archviz, look back at them and respond, ah! you want someone to do CARTOONS .

i totally agree with WAcky.

[Fran]

Speaking of the rain drop - I thought I'd been nailed by pigeon poop at first. So I think that qualifies as a failure of a VFX element.

 

I think that as far as not showing specifics of the living spaces, the (perhaps egotistical) assumption might be, "Anyone who's anyone would feel lucky to live in this building." So it's not the nuts and bolts they are trying to sell, but a feeling. I have a feeling they need to add hepa filters to the hvac system to keep the pollen out.

[ShaunDon]

Lately I've been working with a New York architect who often criticizes design choices as being "trite," and as much as it pains me to admit, in this case I think the label fits pretty well.

 

The spores traveling through the lobby took me out of the video completely. All I could envision was it's natural beauty being snuffed out by contact with a sterile, polished floor -- or perhaps more likely it getting sucked into an air-return vent! As my colleague pointed out, they've turned off every potential buyer with allergies. ;-)

 

I find it immensely amusing that in order to "reinvent" archviz they used only one cut. Yes, they switched it up from wide angles of sweeping vistas to macro shots of the bead of water... but the content never really made up for the staleness of the motion.

 

Neoscape's piece for the Plaza in New York, at least for me, is still the pinnacle of elegance and effectiveness in archviz animation. Yeah, Imageworks' clouds were way better (well, duhh), but I still remember the awe I felt the first time I saw it. The Spire did nothing like that for me.

 

Shaun

[Fran]

I have looked at the piece a couple more times, re-read the article (and paid attention this time), and explored the chicago spire web site. My opinion of the piece as of now is that, presented as "architectural visualization animation" it falls way outside of the industry norm. But this piece is an "art piece" and not a marketing tool. It's not meant to sell units. It's meant to present the building as an element, not a sum of elements. It's meant to portray the inspiration for the building as much as the building itself. If you look at this as a traditional architectural animation, then you do not come away with what you expected. If you approach it with the expectation that given the money and manhours to do the project you could have done much better, well, better in what ways? How would your "art piece" be better? It would certainly be different. Would you have the skills to supervise the musical composition? That is what Sheena Duggall did. Given a talanted composer, she got exactly what she wanted to drive the piece. It's the best part, in my opinion. It's not just good compared to the rest of the piece - it's really good music (for a film score).

[WAcky]

how can we get this thread forwarded onto them?

[EddieLeon]

How about we turn the Spire into a challenge and show them how it's really done? We can split the project into a series shots/scenes. We collaborate and help each other build a master 3d model of the Spire and surrounding areas. Everyone selects one scene to do for the competition. The best scene wins the competition. We invite someone from Calatrava's office and/or the developer to see the final movie at DMVC.

 

Any thoughts?

[WAcky]

LOL that is an awesome idea.

[znotlin]

How about we turn the Spire into a challenge and show them how it's really done? We can split the project into a series shots/scenes. We collaborate and help each other build a master 3d model of the Spire and surrounding areas. Everyone selects one scene to do for the competition. The best scene wins the competition. We invite someone from Calatrava's office and/or the developer to see the final movie at DMVC.

 

Any thoughts?

 

The developer paid a lot of money for that video, and undoubtedly the architect pushed the reading of many of the materials - so even if it's crap (I don't know I didn't watch it but I like the thread ) I fear they're gonna like the one they participated in more, or at least say they do, lest be the fool.

 

Personally I think we need to let it go and make sure that every project that we bid also gets sent to this team so they can put a price on it too. We can raise our prices 300% and still be cheaper than them, we'll be GOLDEN!

 

Now what was that director's name and address?

[EddieLeon]

Personally I think we need to let it go...

 

Zeke, I would normally agree with you, but in this case Sony is essentially saying that our industry sucks:

 

"The film Inspire, conceived by Imageworks’ Duggal, was to break the mold of architectural sales tools - a landscape usually filled with non-emotional, sterile sales videos."

 

"When I first became involved in the project I looked at examples of a typical architectural visualization and realized immediately that I had a lot to offer. The first thing that struck me was the fact that architectural visualizations had no narrative and were driven by unmotivated camera moves, says Duggal.

 

I agree with WAcky that we should somehow set the record straight. Our industry should get more respect, plus it might even be a good PR opportunity for all of us.

[Fran]

I agree with WAcky that we should somehow set the record straight. Our industry should get more respect, plus it might even be a good PR opportunity for all of us.

 

I'm not sure why it's important to have respect from the VFX community if you consider what they've produced to be crap. The only reason I could see for changing the way you work is if you agree that it needs to be changed.

 

The bottom line is, do you do architectural visualization or do you do art pieces? Do you feel that there is more room for artistic interpretation? Is it even appropriate? You obviously understand the purpose of your work and what your clients want or you wouldn't be so successful.

[Ernest Burden III]

do you do architectural visualization or do you do art pieces?

 

Yes!

 

I'm not sure why it's important to have respect from the VFX community if you consider what they've produced to be crap.

 

One practical reason would to have that industry look to us to help with their projects, in other words, open up more avenues for work for us. When your work is in arch-vis, and you talk to producers about working on a film project, they look at you and say 'but you haven't worked in film'. Its a hard boundary to cross, so it wouldn't hurt if the VFX crowd began to see the value in the work we do rather than assuming they can do anything we can do better. And vice-versa. there's plenty we can learn from how they work that would make our work better.

[znotlin]

these are the same ilk of people that brought us Pirates of the Carribean III and they're criticizing us for a lack of narrative?

 

At least ususally we keep our work to under 5 minutes, and don't charge 10 bucks to see it.

 

No offense intended, but I really don't understand much of the culture's fascination with the opinions of those in Hollywood - even if we can learn something from them (which we can). Now their pricing - that I like.

[Fran]

One practical reason would to have that industry look to us to help with their projects, in other words, open up more avenues for work for us. When your work is in arch-vis, and you talk to producers about working on a film project, they look at you and say 'but you haven't worked in film'. Its a hard boundary to cross, so it wouldn't hurt if the VFX crowd began to see the value in the work we do rather than assuming they can do anything we can do better. And vice-versa. there's plenty we can learn from how they work that would make our work better.

 

Ah. I see. So this has gracefully evolved from a grudge match mentality to a learning experience? I feel all warm and fuzzy now.

 

Personally, though I feel I am very good at what I do, I wouldn't feel I had anything to offer the VFX industry (and would not choose to enter a culture of that particular mindset). Maybe modelling, but even that isn't my strong suit and I would certainly have no idea how to model something procedurally. Even if I could pinpoint what I do best in arch viz, I just don't feel it would translate into anything that would be of value to a film studio on the scale of Imageworks. I prefer to just sit back and take what they do for granted.

 

As for those who produce works on a much larger scale, from what I've seen, it certainly isn't all alike and it certainly runs the gamut of what can be done in the realm of arch viz. I stress architectural vizualization because we serve as representers of our clients' designs. It is up to the relationship between the studio and the client as to how their work is visualized. Some clients are more open to "outside of the box" concepts than others. For instance, a high-profile architect will be more interested in higher-level concepts than, say, a developer who wants a "this is what you will get if you buy a unit in this building" approach.

[Ernest Burden III]

Ah. I see. So this has gracefully evolved from a grudge match mentality to a learning experience? I feel all warm and fuzzy now.

 

I'm like that.

 

I try to see these things in terms of how to better the general situation for all than me against them. Something I learned early in my career was there was always going to someone, usually many someones, who were going to be better than me in anything I was doing. So I do my best and don't expect to be handed golden statues. You have to judge your work on where you started and where you took it.

 

Another point for me--I never meant to be an architectural illustrator, I meant to be a Sci-Fi illustrator, and wanted to do movie design and effects. But I got pulled off that path too early and could never get back without too much 'starting over'. I have had that conversation with a feature-film producer and heard that response.

 

But whether we're working for a Studio or an architect, the work is still someone else's idea of what should be made/shown. Can it still be art if you are not following your own path? I think it can, I think commercial film and even architectural vis. can be considered art if done well. Many of the most treasured works of history were done for patrons with little control left to the artist. In fact, the distinction between fine art and commercial art is a very modern invention.

 

And when it comes to the animated architectural film, most stink. But most of anything in any creative category stink. So what, they don't all stink. I've had the honor to be a judge for a number of major arch. rendering/animation competitions, I've seen a lot of the best our industry has produced. And some of it is amazing. I think we're doing fine.

[EddieLeon]

I'm not sure why it's important to have respect from the VFX community if you consider what they've produced to be crap.

 

Well...I respect the VFX community and I think respect should be reciprocal. My suggestion of a "challenge" is only so that our voices can be heard. If we just ignore Sheena then I believe we are accepting her impression of our industry. I think not, so this might be a good opportunity to make a statement.

 

Also, I don't think "InSpire" is crap. I just don't think it "breaks the mold". That mold was broken long ago by some great arch viz artists and studios. Some people need to be educated about these facts.

 

The bottom line is, do you do architectural visualization or do you do art pieces? Do you feel that there is more room for artistic interpretation? Is it even appropriate?

 

The obvious answer is both. It's a fine line that we have to walk every day. We try to please the clients and their market driven needs. Simultaneously, we try to do work that we can feel proud about and feel that we are making a difference.

[EddieLeon]

One practical reason would to have that industry look to us to help with their projects, in other words, open up more avenues for work for us. When your work is in arch-vis, and you talk to producers about working on a film project, they look at you and say 'but you haven't worked in film'. Its a hard boundary to cross, so it wouldn't hurt if the VFX crowd began to see the value in the work we do rather than assuming they can do anything we can do better. And vice-versa. there's plenty we can learn from how they work that would make our work better.

 

I agree 100%. Recognition of our abilities will help to expand our market. The other advantage is that it will help us to recruit talent and help arch viz artists also to get jobs in the VFX industry.

[Fran]

I guess a pertinent question would be, "Do the major VFX studios plan to make further exploits into the realm of architectural visualization based on the premise that they feel they are superior at it?" Is that what the bristling is really about? You can't make someone respect your work if they don't see any value in it.

 

Whenever someone says something like, "Well, I've never seen anything very good come out of that render engine." If they are referring to the one I use, the last thing I would do is go pulling out all my stuff to shove it in their face in the hope that they will somehow go back on themselves and admit it is very good afterall. Like that will ever happen.

[Justin Hunt]

I feel that we can take alot form the SFX industry, more in how things are done in a film production environment and adapt them to enable us to work better.

 

Alot of arch viz animations are steril and devoid of artistic merit, which stems from clients insisting on the same old, same old stuff. They (and we) want to show and see everything at the same time, tell too many stories instead of one.

 

We are also guilty of this more out of not having the storytelling skills. This is due to the backround of a large majority of visualisers. Most have had architectural schooling in one form or an other. As such approch animation from the "the design in most important thing". We to are too are concernted about selling the sausage rather than the sizzle.

 

As apposed to someone from a film/fine art backround who is more interested in the feeling and story, the building is just some where to set the story. The sizzle sells the sausage.

 

JHV

[Fran]

Well...I respect the VFX community and I think respect should be reciprocal. My suggestion of a "challenge" is only so that our voices can be heard. If we just ignore Sheena then I believe we are accepting her impression of our industry. I think not, so this might be a good opportunity to make a statement.

 

Then I guess, judging by your previous comments, that it's only Sheena Duggall that you don't respect. Let me know when you're done "kicking Sheena's arse."

[EddieLeon]

I prefer to just sit back and take what they do for granted.

 

???...that's not how I like to approach things.

[EddieLeon]

We are also guilty of this more out of not having the storytelling skills. This is due to the backround of a large majority of visualisers. Most have had architectural schooling in one form or an other. As such approch animation from the "the design in most important thing". We to are too are concernted about selling the sausage rather than the sizzle.

 

Storytelling wasn't necessarily in our architecture curriculum, but having a design "concept" was. This was drilled into our heads in every design studio. A concept is a story about what gives your design meaning. I believe that great architects are great story tellers. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me how we are seeing great films coming out of the arch viz industry.

 

By the way, I prefer to put the sizzle in my sausage and give the full package. Hmmm...somehow that doesn't sound quite right. But, I wouldn't want to say it backwards.