websmythe Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 This question comes from a comment from DelfoZ on my submission for Challenge #5. http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=000097 > the image seems good, but i dont seem this > like a photomontage it seem more like a > poster promoting dance .. > > it seems more like graphic design that > architecture visualitation.. So the question is: What is considered good architectural visualisation? What are considered good guidelines? Ya... I know... go to school Any good books I can read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 29, 2003 Author Share Posted April 29, 2003 This question comes from a comment from DelfoZ on my submission for Challenge #5. http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=000097 > the image seems good, but i dont seem this > like a photomontage it seem more like a > poster promoting dance .. > > it seems more like graphic design that > architecture visualitation.. So the question is: What is considered good architectural visualisation? What are considered good guidelines? Ya... I know... go to school Any good books I can read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 I'll give this a shot: The contest (challenge #5) is a competition. The idea ( seems to me) is to sell your firms ability to interperate the "activity generators" purpose. The emphasis is on the attraction of the act. gen. and the assumption seems to be that it will create activity. The purpose of the challenge is to show that interaction between people and space. Now your image does that but it has de-emphasised the act. gen. Also it is showing a performance based activity not a spontaneouse interaction of space and people. Nowhere in the challenge does it say it needs to be so but by showing flamingo dancers instead of say break dancers jamming on the ground or mimes or someother public art form the emphasis is taken away from public and is placed more on performance. Now notice that much of what I said I have assumed from the challenge description. I may be wrong and others may say that they have the exact opposite idea of the project but what I have stated is precise. Much of viz work is creating a scene and an appropriate enviroment. Interpratation of purpose. That is really a huge aspect of what we do. Your image is really good but it seems like you are selling the product to a different crowd. This project is really about sales. At least so thinks I. (must use less periods. I learned to write from watching captn kirk.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 I'll give this a shot: The contest (challenge #5) is a competition. The idea ( seems to me) is to sell your firms ability to interperate the "activity generators" purpose. The emphasis is on the attraction of the act. gen. and the assumption seems to be that it will create activity. The purpose of the challenge is to show that interaction between people and space. Now your image does that but it has de-emphasised the act. gen. Also it is showing a performance based activity not a spontaneouse interaction of space and people. Nowhere in the challenge does it say it needs to be so but by showing flamingo dancers instead of say break dancers jamming on the ground or mimes or someother public art form the emphasis is taken away from public and is placed more on performance. Now notice that much of what I said I have assumed from the challenge description. I may be wrong and others may say that they have the exact opposite idea of the project but what I have stated is precise. Much of viz work is creating a scene and an appropriate enviroment. Interpratation of purpose. That is really a huge aspect of what we do. Your image is really good but it seems like you are selling the product to a different crowd. This project is really about sales. At least so thinks I. (must use less periods. I learned to write from watching captn kirk.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 The recent article interviewing Andrew Hartness (http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=1168) provides an interesting view on this issue: "One should always keep in mind that an image’s priority should be to convey a sense of intended existence, and not absolute reality. What does the project mean to do? What is being communicated? Do I want to go there? One must learn to adapt the “desired” to the “built”, whether by means of light, movement, mystery or other.... ...(I do not like to see) Images without mystery, images devoid of life, images in which the technology (plug-ins, radiosity engines, surrealistic details) take priority over the message one wishes to convey. I can’t stand images without a script, static images. Something has to be going on. Sensitivity and a certain presence are important to me, whether literally in the image or in the way the way the image was produced."Asking "What is good?" is asking "What does the draughtsman desire from the gaze of the viewer?" People like to look, to see, the concupiscence of the eyes. Go and feed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 The recent article interviewing Andrew Hartness (http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=1168) provides an interesting view on this issue: "One should always keep in mind that an image’s priority should be to convey a sense of intended existence, and not absolute reality. What does the project mean to do? What is being communicated? Do I want to go there? One must learn to adapt the “desired” to the “built”, whether by means of light, movement, mystery or other.... ...(I do not like to see) Images without mystery, images devoid of life, images in which the technology (plug-ins, radiosity engines, surrealistic details) take priority over the message one wishes to convey. I can’t stand images without a script, static images. Something has to be going on. Sensitivity and a certain presence are important to me, whether literally in the image or in the way the way the image was produced."Asking "What is good?" is asking "What does the draughtsman desire from the gaze of the viewer?" People like to look, to see, the concupiscence of the eyes. Go and feed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 29, 2003 Author Share Posted April 29, 2003 > Now your image does that but it has > de-emphasised the act. gen. Also it > is showing a performance based activity not > a spontaneouse interaction of space and people. > ...by showing flamingo dancers instead > of say break dancers jamming on the ground or > mimes or someother public art form the emphasis > is taken away from public and is placed more on > performance. Well put. I agree 100%. Nice one. Didn't catch that. (Even tho' the dancers are a staged photo from professional tango site. Duh!) In regard to the quote from Andrew Harkness, "(I do not like to see) Images without mystery, images devoid of life...", I feel the same way. I was looking for a hook, cause I wasn't impressed with the colours and perspective in the original image. Neither of which says "Activity". I also didn't find any images that really worked with the perspective that was there. Anyways, I ran across a comment from Nisus in one of the forums regarding looking at the shadows in the textiles, and thought "Right! Look at the source again and see what it tells ya." The shadow said "Tango", so off I went. And when I found the tango image everything else went out the door, I'd finally found a hook. To me they fitted the shape. And somewhere along the line the idea of "dancing till dawn" surfaced. What I didn't do was stand back at that point and compare it again to the brief. Well, "live and learn". Nice exercise tho'. Anyways, back to the ol' drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 29, 2003 Author Share Posted April 29, 2003 > Now your image does that but it has > de-emphasised the act. gen. Also it > is showing a performance based activity not > a spontaneouse interaction of space and people. > ...by showing flamingo dancers instead > of say break dancers jamming on the ground or > mimes or someother public art form the emphasis > is taken away from public and is placed more on > performance. Well put. I agree 100%. Nice one. Didn't catch that. (Even tho' the dancers are a staged photo from professional tango site. Duh!) In regard to the quote from Andrew Harkness, "(I do not like to see) Images without mystery, images devoid of life...", I feel the same way. I was looking for a hook, cause I wasn't impressed with the colours and perspective in the original image. Neither of which says "Activity". I also didn't find any images that really worked with the perspective that was there. Anyways, I ran across a comment from Nisus in one of the forums regarding looking at the shadows in the textiles, and thought "Right! Look at the source again and see what it tells ya." The shadow said "Tango", so off I went. And when I found the tango image everything else went out the door, I'd finally found a hook. To me they fitted the shape. And somewhere along the line the idea of "dancing till dawn" surfaced. What I didn't do was stand back at that point and compare it again to the brief. Well, "live and learn". Nice exercise tho'. Anyways, back to the ol' drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelfoZ Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 ((( ur imagen r good. im agree ))) what is a good architectural visualisation ? when ur imagen show all the space and u can feel it. when the image can talk by self. the best visualisation isn't the best render like final render, brazil, vray, etc etc.. Ur imagen r very dramatic, i like the colors. is a very good composition.. is a Good cartel, nice poster... u can´t sell a project with that... thats my point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelfoZ Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 ((( ur imagen r good. im agree ))) what is a good architectural visualisation ? when ur imagen show all the space and u can feel it. when the image can talk by self. the best visualisation isn't the best render like final render, brazil, vray, etc etc.. Ur imagen r very dramatic, i like the colors. is a very good composition.. is a Good cartel, nice poster... u can´t sell a project with that... thats my point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Good work encompasses your own thoughtful critique of the design process. Taken with the image you created, I would say 'well done'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Good work encompasses your own thoughtful critique of the design process. Taken with the image you created, I would say 'well done'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Mottle Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Ahhh a great topic. Let me propose something to the group and I hope that the trained architects in the group will also respond. - What are your thoughts on architectural CG being photoreal? Is it passe? - Do you think that an image has to be different to be good? If it is nicely compososed does the quality/detail of rendering have to be equally as good? - Does an image have to convey a message or can the subject matter speak for itself (again assuming it's nicely composed) - Is an image that conveys a stong message, but it poorly done (ie no technical ability required at all and colors that are mediochre) still a good image? - Does an image have to be "poslished" and good "eye candy" to be considered good? Some things that have wondered and am curious to hear comments on by the community as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Mottle Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Ahhh a great topic. Let me propose something to the group and I hope that the trained architects in the group will also respond. - What are your thoughts on architectural CG being photoreal? Is it passe? - Do you think that an image has to be different to be good? If it is nicely compososed does the quality/detail of rendering have to be equally as good? - Does an image have to convey a message or can the subject matter speak for itself (again assuming it's nicely composed) - Is an image that conveys a stong message, but it poorly done (ie no technical ability required at all and colors that are mediochre) still a good image? - Does an image have to be "poslished" and good "eye candy" to be considered good? Some things that have wondered and am curious to hear comments on by the community as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 30, 2003 Author Share Posted April 30, 2003 Ha! Ilove it! Wind 'em up. Roll 'em out. Rawhide! It is interesting, in exploring the method of Socratic dialogue, that the tenor of any given conversation is directly relational to the quality, integrity, etc., of the question posed for discussion. Nice one, Mr. Mottle. What I find personally interesting is that the basic human physiology of sight and hearing attests to the validity of the questions posed. aka... The Greeks understood the problem of perfectly straight line when building columns for the Parthenon; and if you tune a piano "perfectly" to prescribed mathematical frequencies it will sound out of tune to the human ear. Even mathematics attests to the construct that the simple "point" & "line", straight or curved, is an abstract theoretical construct of the mind, as it cannot actually be observed. On a completely different tack... a documentary on Pornography that aired on Channel 4 here in the UK, which at one point was discussing the change in film making from using actors and actresses to play prostitutes to using 'real' prostitutes, had a clip of Bob Guiccioni (Penthouse) saying that "in his opinion, the shift to 'reality' based film/tv was happening because Western Culture in the late 20th Century had lost it's sense of imagination." --- "The problem with normal is it always gets worse." - Bruce Coburn, songwriter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 30, 2003 Author Share Posted April 30, 2003 Ha! Ilove it! Wind 'em up. Roll 'em out. Rawhide! It is interesting, in exploring the method of Socratic dialogue, that the tenor of any given conversation is directly relational to the quality, integrity, etc., of the question posed for discussion. Nice one, Mr. Mottle. What I find personally interesting is that the basic human physiology of sight and hearing attests to the validity of the questions posed. aka... The Greeks understood the problem of perfectly straight line when building columns for the Parthenon; and if you tune a piano "perfectly" to prescribed mathematical frequencies it will sound out of tune to the human ear. Even mathematics attests to the construct that the simple "point" & "line", straight or curved, is an abstract theoretical construct of the mind, as it cannot actually be observed. On a completely different tack... a documentary on Pornography that aired on Channel 4 here in the UK, which at one point was discussing the change in film making from using actors and actresses to play prostitutes to using 'real' prostitutes, had a clip of Bob Guiccioni (Penthouse) saying that "in his opinion, the shift to 'reality' based film/tv was happening because Western Culture in the late 20th Century had lost it's sense of imagination." --- "The problem with normal is it always gets worse." - Bruce Coburn, songwriter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 30, 2003 Author Share Posted April 30, 2003 [DelfoZ:] Ur imagen r very dramatic, i like the colors. is a very good composition.. is a Good cartel, nice poster... u can´t sell a project with that... thats my point... Point understood. I actually respected your response, because I had thought the same thing myself. I was going to put a note beside the final version of the image that said "Architectural visualisation... maybe not. Graphic design... definately!" But I jammed out. My critical assessment of myself is that after too many years of doing 'the graphic thing' I have gotten locked into a box (a default style) and it's time to work myself out. Time to grow. You made a distinction between "graphic design" and "architecural visualisation". I thought it was worth exploring further. Regarding "u can´t sell a project with that...". I don't know that I'd go that far. I thought that would have depended on who was doing the selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websmythe Posted April 30, 2003 Author Share Posted April 30, 2003 [DelfoZ:] Ur imagen r very dramatic, i like the colors. is a very good composition.. is a Good cartel, nice poster... u can´t sell a project with that... thats my point... Point understood. I actually respected your response, because I had thought the same thing myself. I was going to put a note beside the final version of the image that said "Architectural visualisation... maybe not. Graphic design... definately!" But I jammed out. My critical assessment of myself is that after too many years of doing 'the graphic thing' I have gotten locked into a box (a default style) and it's time to work myself out. Time to grow. You made a distinction between "graphic design" and "architecural visualisation". I thought it was worth exploring further. Regarding "u can´t sell a project with that...". I don't know that I'd go that far. I thought that would have depended on who was doing the selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 What are your thoughts on architectural CG being photoreal? Is it passe?It very much depends on the brief. An objective assessment of landscape and visual effects, or presentation of expert evidence to a Planning Tribunal, would benefit from photorealism. difference,composition,quality,message,technique Some of these criteria are a matter of subjective taste. Others such as composition and technique involve culture-specific perceptions. If its 'Art', truth goodness and beauty are open to personal expression; different message, the composition and aesthetics have their own voice. Whereas landscape and its architecture involve 'public good' planning issues, inherent in the imaging/rendering of site designs and projects. Some photorealistic renderings seem very aesthetic but produce little more than cornell box reproductions of physics, lights and object illumination. There is no detritus, no inhabitants, no ephemeral phenomena. A sterile euclidean object posed in the physics of illumination. Here is an alternative emphasis, closer to the detritus of everyday life http://www.nawyecky.com/tuts/tut-gi.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferox Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 What are your thoughts on architectural CG being photoreal? Is it passe?It very much depends on the brief. An objective assessment of landscape and visual effects, or presentation of expert evidence to a Planning Tribunal, would benefit from photorealism. difference,composition,quality,message,technique Some of these criteria are a matter of subjective taste. Others such as composition and technique involve culture-specific perceptions. If its 'Art', truth goodness and beauty are open to personal expression; different message, the composition and aesthetics have their own voice. Whereas landscape and its architecture involve 'public good' planning issues, inherent in the imaging/rendering of site designs and projects. Some photorealistic renderings seem very aesthetic but produce little more than cornell box reproductions of physics, lights and object illumination. There is no detritus, no inhabitants, no ephemeral phenomena. A sterile euclidean object posed in the physics of illumination. Here is an alternative emphasis, closer to the detritus of everyday life http://www.nawyecky.com/tuts/tut-gi.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Personally I think photoreal is a style I think it works for some stuff but I think it is really more of a goal. I think a lot of us shoot for that because it is extremely difficult to attain. I think most of the stuff I see being rendered is a better rendering than it is architecture. Which makes me wonder why are these artist trying to achieve photoreal when reality aint that interesting. I was working with one architect and we were looking at the schematic renderings I had put together. I had the modeling down and was showing him early materials for consideration. I had gotten street photos and pasted them together for the street and had nice aging on the walks and curbs and I showed it to him and he was horrified. He didn't want it that real. He pointed out if I wanted to show reality there would be heroin addicts on the street and drive by shootings. We settled on something more stylized. Do I think Photoreal is passe? No. But I think it will pass. Right now we are so far away from having what I would call "workable realism" that it is hard to judge. What I mean by this is: Modeling architecture is one thing. It requires models, materials, lighting and a knowledge or architecture. But the entourage stuff just is not there yet. RPC is really overpriced for what seems medium res stuff. Bitmaps will always be just bitmaps and right now very few people can afford the cpu overhead to create unique content (ie trees people cars etc) for each file. I have a window that looks out to my back yard & this eve I was looking at the light playing off this tree that was leaning on our fence. There was so much going on there lighting wise that I could never explain it. The lighting was so dramatic that it looked like there were 3 trees not one. Some of the leaves were blue reflecting the sky, others were basically black in the thickest part, and some looked like the edges were transparent. 5 minutes later the light had changed and it was all new. A bitmap would never ever get that right a model of that tree alone would be at least 500,000 faces. But aside from all that just look at all the tools we as artists have. We have at our disposal basicaly a simulation of every form of art. Of course tha main short coming is that we have clients who want something that is usually just like something they saw recently. :winkgrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Personally I think photoreal is a style I think it works for some stuff but I think it is really more of a goal. I think a lot of us shoot for that because it is extremely difficult to attain. I think most of the stuff I see being rendered is a better rendering than it is architecture. Which makes me wonder why are these artist trying to achieve photoreal when reality aint that interesting. I was working with one architect and we were looking at the schematic renderings I had put together. I had the modeling down and was showing him early materials for consideration. I had gotten street photos and pasted them together for the street and had nice aging on the walks and curbs and I showed it to him and he was horrified. He didn't want it that real. He pointed out if I wanted to show reality there would be heroin addicts on the street and drive by shootings. We settled on something more stylized. Do I think Photoreal is passe? No. But I think it will pass. Right now we are so far away from having what I would call "workable realism" that it is hard to judge. What I mean by this is: Modeling architecture is one thing. It requires models, materials, lighting and a knowledge or architecture. But the entourage stuff just is not there yet. RPC is really overpriced for what seems medium res stuff. Bitmaps will always be just bitmaps and right now very few people can afford the cpu overhead to create unique content (ie trees people cars etc) for each file. I have a window that looks out to my back yard & this eve I was looking at the light playing off this tree that was leaning on our fence. There was so much going on there lighting wise that I could never explain it. The lighting was so dramatic that it looked like there were 3 trees not one. Some of the leaves were blue reflecting the sky, others were basically black in the thickest part, and some looked like the edges were transparent. 5 minutes later the light had changed and it was all new. A bitmap would never ever get that right a model of that tree alone would be at least 500,000 faces. But aside from all that just look at all the tools we as artists have. We have at our disposal basicaly a simulation of every form of art. Of course tha main short coming is that we have clients who want something that is usually just like something they saw recently. :winkgrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 My two pennies are here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000012 For those of you who don't know what a penny is, its like a cent. :ngelaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 My two pennies are here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000012 For those of you who don't know what a penny is, its like a cent. :ngelaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gulgamesh Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I think given the business of architects we are naturally drawn towards the photoreal. But I prefer to call it building simulation. I think there are endless advantages, for me anyway, in simulating a building in a computer. However, we are a profession which has been working on paper for hundereds of years, and it will take time for computers and new media to settle into a role. For me the value of modelling goes all the way through a design, from concept to analysis and critique, and refining. I realise, that I take for granted my spacial awareness and my ability to grasp 3D, and dare I say it... having an imagination. In fact I put it to the group that many of us do. It goes part and parcel with our job, BUT, its not something everyone can grasp. To some photoreal is like magic... it's there but its not magic... your brilliant... built it and be my God! To others its too concrete... to real... and interferes with their natural tendency to 'tweek'. Like anything else we have to excerise caution and care when using CG, like any other task we have to read the client and gauge what is appropiate for them. As for a good image, for me, its creating an emotion connection, that can be done with light, detail, window dressing etc. Any image thats not up for too much scrutiny can be a good image with the right balance of ingredents, and like ingredents, lack of one can be compinsated by a bit more of another in order to balance the image. Great images however are a different thing, and like anything which you might prefix 'great' onto you find that the one common denominator running through it will be quality, and quality alone. 'Quality' however does not seem to be on big demand, at least not in Ireland anyway. 'Half-Assed but works' seem to be the prefered ethic unfortunately. So really when we bend over backward to perfect something its really self gratification we're looking for, the detial with I consider tantimount and critical to a piece of work usually goes all but unnoticed (at least consciously anyway... or so I hope) but to be honest it doesn't bother me. It's that constant striving, perfecting, and discussion that pushes the people, their skills, and the technology. In that respect photo-real and the horsing around that goes on in private offices and bedrooms around the worlk and at this site and others has more to do with playing a part in exploring and finding a place for the technology. And watching how the profession are evolving and absorbing or rejecting as the case may be what we do. That all plays a part in discovering and understanding 'why' something is a good image rather than just 'is' it a good image, and discovering is a very very exciting past time... for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now