Don't know how to feel

[Justin Hunt]

Unfortunaterly more often than note that storytelling skill isnt evident in the animations, heck I am very guilty of it.

 

JHV

[Hidden_Pixel]

Fran, I think you are missing the point. What concerns me is the decision that these guys made to spend so much money using SPI rather than use one of the top Arch Viz studios. Was it purely for the prestige of the SPI name.

You can be a pacifist but I think our industry is not as respected as it should be.

It also disturbs me Fran that you think you have nothing to offer the VFX industry, how wrong could you be. Don't sell yourself short!. There are a lot of arch viz professionals that could get into VFX. If you have the talent, all you have to do is move to Hollywood, network, make fake friends to get your foot in the door, make coffee for people, maybe finally get some donkey work, work your way up and maybe one day get your fuzzy name in the end titles. Of course this is a wild and crude generalization, but my point is don't put these guys up on a pedestal. We have plenty to offer them and they have plenty to offer us!.

[Ernest Burden III]

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?

 

Very well put, Fran.

 

I don't think that is what the bristle is about. I think it's our collective inferiority complex. I know I have that problem, if it wasn't obvious already. In my case it may stem from having wanted to do VFX work but never getting into that door. Was I ever 'good enough'? Too late to know, really. At this point it would cost me too much to find out, so I'll go at it another way.

 

I had this discussion with Chris Nichols, the Patron Saint of CGarchitect. He went through the same issues and faced the same barriers I mentioned, but he made a full effort and broke through from architecture to film work. It was his effort and perseverance that did it. He's not the only one, just the one we know best around here. He thought it was getting easier now for production companies to see the value in arch-vis skills/experience.

 

With the last animation I did I tried to use the most 'cinematic' camera moves I could. the client first commented with "Wow' (and nothing else), but later refined it to 'it's a little too much Borne Identity'. They wanted me to go back towards a 'regular walkthrough'. Which is fine--as long as I'm taking their money I have a responsibility to produce what they expect. No complaint.

 

It's an interior, nothing is happening. You're just moving through an empty space. There's not much you can do make it more interesting. If you go back and look at the animation entries in the first AVC, you see just how good it can get even given those restrictions. A number of entrants used what I called 'leader objects' like Tim Nelsons glowing alien orb checking out the scene, or the falling leaf by...(forgot the artist's name). It's a lot easier to hold a viewer's attention when Matt Damon is on the screen and stuff is blowing up. And a lot easier to achieve the effects you want when the budget is $150 million. Is that a cop-out? Maybe.

 

But go back to my portrait analogy. You have to do your best to show off the personality of your sitter (subject), that's your job. I think what I'm seeing in the arch-vis field is doing just that on many occasions.

 

Eddie--I like your suggestion on the 'challenge', it's just a matter of finding time for people to play along at home.

[Hidden_Pixel]

Ernest, I would like to opt out of your collective inferiority complex. Judging by that animation, we have nothing to feel inferior about. Yet again you are putting VFX up on a pedestal. I actually feel great about my work after seeing that:).

[Guest percydaman]

This animation is pretty much exactly how I would have envisioned a hollywood studio, with next to no arch vis experience, would create an animation. They basically came up with ideas that any of a number of people could and have thought of, and even implemented into animation. They just proved to everyone that read the article, that they weren't experienced with arch vis, so they took the brute force 'throw money and people' at it.

 

As an art flick, its rather substandard, and as a 'sell units' animation its downright poor. It seems to be this mix between the two that fails on both ends.

 

They could have taken their money, and used it to tell a really good story. Instead they used it to create a film that seems to throw in arch vis cliche after cliche.

[Fran]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fran

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

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

 

I meant as a consumer.

[Ernest Burden III]

Ernest, I would like to opt out of your collective inferiority complex. Judging by that animation, we have nothing to feel inferior about.

 

I meant against the movie effects industry overall, but OK, no offense meant.

 

I finally watched the piece just now. Is the animated portion on the buildings website the only part that we've got to look at? The article has stills, and says some of the film can be seen at...

 

In terms of what's on that site--you guys are right, it's awful. It's well made but largely a cliche with the cloud effects, and it's one long single camera move! It took awhile, but we've moved past that. Aside from the night shot, which robs the tower of its unique surface, the building is removed from its context and comes off as an odd sculpture rather than a living building in one of the most architecturally interesting cities on Earth. If you want to make the point about how special the tower is, show it as standing out amid the sea of special that is the Chicago skyline.

 

The main shot is supposed to show off the form which is a spiral, but it does so 'against the grain' of the pattern, thus highlighting the ribs more than the strong directional force of them spiraling up. Doing the same shot but going right-to-left would have been so sympathetic to the design and so much more appealing. Perhaps they tried that and rejected it for some reason, I should be fair about that.

 

You never get to feel like you're at the building, you're just standing back admiring it. I assume that's covered in the parts of the film we aren't seeing. What would it be like to live there, what would you see walking along Michigan Avenue, for example? How does the shape express itself on the interior? When you look out your window can you tell you're in the spiral? Again--they probably covered some of this, it's just not in the portion on their website.

[Ian P]

Its incredible that 75 people took 4 months to miss a reflection of A bird in the plastic mirrors that are being passed of as windows. Obviously while spendng so much time soting out the 'narrative' so tell such a complex storey as a building fly round some one forgot how to render.

[Tommy L]

I would agree they over-did the glazing distortion.

[Ernest Burden III]

Its incredible that 75 people took 4 months to miss a reflection of A bird in the plastic mirrors that are being passed of as windows.

 

Well, the mullions suggest that the camera is fairly level (no visible perspective keystoning) so you probably would see the bird reflected. But the reflections that are shown are all looking down towards the ground. If the reflections shown are somehow accurate you would not see the bird, but I think they are extremely faked.

[znotlin]

I think Fran is spot on, and if we collectively think that doing free work in the form of a challenge is going to garner more respect for our industry as a whole, we do have a serious inferiority complex no matter how you parse it.

 

If you do want to do a film challenge (aka free work) there are more deserving architectural causes than the tallest building in the world for someone who has more money than god IMHO.

[EddieLeon]

If you do want to do a film challenge (aka free work) there are more deserving architectural causes than the tallest building in the world for someone who has more money than god IMHO.

 

Zeke, I'm all ears. Let me know what architectural cause is more deserving and how you think we will be able to use it to help elevate our industry.

 

Also, let us know how you would react to Sheena or if you think her statements even merit a reaction from us. Are we just over reacting, or do you think Sheena inadvertently opened the door for us to prove a point?

[Tommy L]

Well there is a charity just down the block from me who would like a fundraising animation of a proposed building but they dont have the money. Its not as glamorous as the Spire but its a worthy cause....

and its a very nice design.

[EddieLeon]

Eddie--I like your suggestion on the 'challenge', it's just a matter of finding time for people to play along at home.

 

Thanks Ernest! I think we have plenty of time until DMVC. I think we can keep the challenge relatively simple and yet produce some really cool work. As I suggested earlier, I am willing to share any of the models we produce for this. This way the artists that join the challenge can focus on camera work and VFX. Let's find out first what Jeff thinks and if it's feasible to add this to DMVC. He might already have other plans and I wouldn't want to interfere.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I missed the part that stated this was only a segment of the animation. Anyone know where we can view the animation in its entirety? Maybe it is a half hour long, and that was where the budget went.

[Hidden_Pixel]

I don't understand why doing a free example project would elevate the industry. The industry is already elevated, it is just their ignorance that stops them from seeing that. A free sample project seems pointless and petty. Our industry is better than doing some free project to stick it to them. We don't need too, we already have judging by the animation. Also I am sure whoever picked SPI to do the visuals knew about all the arch viz firms out there. I really think it was a prestige thing. Also they probably thought they would get something earth shattering.

[EddieLeon]

Well there is a charity just down the block from me who would like a fundraising animation of a proposed building but they dont have the money. Its not as glamorous as the Spire but its a worthy cause....

and its a very nice design.

 

Sounds interesting. Especially, if they have a nice design. An idea I just had was to do something regarding green architecture. Many times I see a building that is green, but I really can't tell what's green about it. An animation that visualizes what is energy efficient about the project would be helpful. The challenge can be called "See the Green" and the artist would need to visualize how the building is saving energy. Maybe we show VFX for heatflow, wind, water, etc...

[EddieLeon]

I don't understand why doing a free example project would elevate the industry.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone make a profit when they enter the DMVC Challenges or any other competition for that matter?

[Hidden_Pixel]

I get where you are coming from Eddie. This one just feels like it may be bred out if pettiness. Just my view, I am sure others will chime in, you may be spot on. Just trying to look at it form all angles .

[Tommy L]

I speak to them tomorrow morning. I was going to offer to do it for cost as its a charity and good PR anyway.... If anyone wants to collaborate then Ill offer it for free. And it really is a nice design. Funny though, charity or not, if they can afford a good architect, and they can afford to build it.......

[Brian Cassil]

I had this discussion with Chris Nichols, the Patron Saint of CGarchitect. He went through the same issues and faced the same barriers I mentioned, but he made a full effort and broke through from architecture to film work. It was his effort and perseverance that did it. He's not the only one, just the one we know best around here. He thought it was getting easier now for production companies to see the value in arch-vis skills/experience.

 

And speaking of Chris... Where is he? Someone go dig him up to comment on this very interesting thread that I'm sure he would have some great insight to.

[Spooner04]

That's a fancy looking drill bit.

 

Is this the same effects supervisor from forrest gump? What's with the stupid dandelion seed?

[Fran]

...What's with the stupid dandelion seed?

 

 

This could explain the disparity between arch viz and vfx houses.

[Spooner04]

This could explain the disparity between arch viz and vfx houses.

 

What? Is it not a dandelion seed?

[RErender]

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. Duggal explains that the film was "challenging technically, as the building was being designed while we were making the film".

 

Let's face it 90% of the Architectural Animations produced so far have been non-emotional and sterile. It is only recently that some have started to break the mold. I still see a lot of work consisting of the 360 fly around and the one shot walk through. It's not their fault that this is how the perceive our work, it is ours. Nils, they were not talking about your work when they said this.

 

If you look again I think you'll see a bit of a "hats off". I'm sure going in they thought it would be easy, just build a model and render it, but they were apparently introduced to the challenges we face working on evolving designs.

 

I agree with most of the critiques, but overall it has a pretty good feel and some parts are impressive. I am sure that if it came from one of our own we would be applauding it.

 

What I think is great and has been touched on is that it is being accepted that a emotional, artistic piece can sell and has value. To put Sony's name on Arch Viz can only be good publicity and with our efficient pipelines, those able to produce this kind of output are in a very good place.