Is realism required?

[nisus]

Hi lads,

 

This is an extension to strat's thoughts, but I thought it was better to handle this in an seperate topic. It might be a great topic for a poll too, but that way we don't really have feedback... So here it is:

 

- Is (photo)realism really required? When does it apply and when not?

- What is your opinion upon simulating reality (viz4/lightscape/etc) against the artist touch (piranisi/collagetechniques)?

- What technique do you use most?

 

rgds

 

nisus

[STRAT]

being a 3d illustrator working for the largest firm of architects in my country we have tighter and tighter dead lines as the bigger jobs come in, which makes it difficult for me to maintain my own high standards of output. and to me, especially in architectural imagery, high standards means realism.

 

to answer your questions -

 

1) if im doing montages of planning applications, public consultations etc... then photo realism is a must. that is usually my brief. not absolute photo realism mind you, but as close as i can get to it in the time given.

 

When it's not needed is all other occations when photomontaging is not involved, ie - just plain model renders. just a high degree of render quality is needed here. altho even in these shots radiosity and gi are usually added to 'beef up' the reality.

 

and obviously site plans, details renders, perspective colouring etc.... photorealism nowhere needed here either.

 

2) I never use free hand style digital packages or filters. i dont like them. we also employ a freehand water colour perspective artist.

 

Ironically i much prefer this style of architectural imaging. a bit behind the modern times i know, but personally speaking i'm an artist first and architect second - i grew up with a paint brush in my hand and a drawing board in front of me, so i do enjoy traditional art immensly, more than digi art.

 

dont get me wrong, i know digi art is the way things are going, and ppl do produce beautiful renders, but free hand painting does it for me.

 

3) technique? whatever time permits from job to job. i dont consiously use a technique, but i obviously do. dunno, cant answer this one.

[nisus]

Hi strat,

 

I found some things I do know so ******* well!

 

1) as close as i can get to it in the time given. : run as fast as you can, but we'll take a leg and a few arms...

 

2) I never use free hand style digital packages or filters. : I don't like them at all. I do use filters sometimes, but not to simulate fine arts. I don't like the idea. If you want fine art, than draw, sketch or paint.

I use filters to get a more distant feeling from fine arts. That's why I layer and blend them a lot.

 

3) we also employ a freehand water colour perspective artist. I think there is no better way to express a good feeling than the traditional illustrators. Cgi just can't touch the subtil ways of the fine arts. RPC, realtrees, gi are no match for the atmosphere of a watercolor or sketch.

 

4) But I do like computer arts. Although not to simulate reality. CGI still has to discover it's own field, FAR beyond reality.

And like photography repositioned painting a century ago - there was no use for painters to simulate reality because the camera could do it so much better, so the painters starting doing other things (abstract painting, impressions, techniques,... well one knows art history) - cgi will reposition traditional photography and film on its own terms.

Although the technique of taking a picture is as simple that anyone can take it, photography found it's own way in the choice of the photographed object/subject (instead of simulating reality)

The same goes for cgi. It's allready on it's way by discovering it's goals beyond reality (retouching, simulating impossible things for real) there's still a way ahead because for now, it still anchors too much in it. I am curious to see what's next

 

rgds

 

nisus

 

As I've mentioned somewhere else on this board: I like the "painters way" in modelling, i.e. make sure your model looks like it, but doesn't... like a face is only a few strokes, or a tree...

[HeDaCoM]

what's next.... realtime radiosity... realtime photorealistic rendering. it's true. why do we have to wait until you render an animation with thousands of TGA's and after that. we can only see that animation. what if I want to see another walktrough? or if I want to move a wall... realtime environments is the future.. no render button anywhere.... now there are graphics cards with hardware acceleration support for shadows, reflections and so on.. soon there will be one with realtime radiosity. I'm sure.

 

but I'm agree.. if it's so easy to simulate reality, then artists go to the abstract thing. I don't like photorealistic simulations. but this is what makes this technology grow up for artist to decide how to use it.

[Guest hajer]

Nice topic

I think it all depend on what the customer

Wants after all we are doing a business not art

What ever we do, has to have a purpose

If customer wants to visualize his project

Than realism is a must if on the other hand

He wants to market his project then presentations and beauty

Is a priority here ... as I was saying it all depend...

[nisus]

Hi hajer,

 

Indeed it all depends, but the business is not something you'll have to flood. You can set your own goals.

In my experience it is NOT the client who chooses what he wants, but the seller. The client can choose the look and eventually twist some ideas, but he only chooses from what he knows, and it is you who informs him about your product and services because very often the client has no idea of the possibilities of 3d.

Therefore he asks your advice, and by giving a certain feedback YOU set the direction.

You can't of course sell him anything else of course, but you can convince him to visualize the same idea (or an even better one) in another way, because often the mental map of clients is very inexperienced.

 

Architectural walkthroughs is one of these really misunderstood things. Most clients wants to see an animation of a real walk through a building. They even draw a line on which to move the camera, but this way is not good!

I don't know if you've ever done that or seen it somewhere, but I think it's crap. In the real world we don't 'see' everyting on our way from point A to B. We see certain views: unimportant things are skipped in our minds and the interesting parts are kept longer in ones mind.

A camera moving along a path is NOT a simulation of this, although it copies the action of walking the mental picture is barely comparable.

Another extra issue of these misunderstood walkthroughs is the effect that you always see things long before you're standing next to it. It is like a long focus on something: very boring if you ask me, because we always want to see new things, not just keep the focus on something for 5 minutes while few things are dropped in the scene. If you reverse this type of animation, you often get a better result btw: you start with an important issue, and new things keep adding to the scene because you tend to walk backwards. This keeps the animation more interesting.

Another way to make a better walkthrough is to fade from point to point. You don't need the information in between, just look at a spot *snap* you're there

And last but not least: study good films!

 

I've lost tracks somehow, but this was just an example that we're not forced to make what our clients want, not at all! Relie on your experience and explore new things. At our company we even choose projects especially to test new techniques we came across; So basicly we use projects as much as for our clients goals as for our own goals. This keeps us from doing the same thing all over

 

One last thought might be NOT to be afraid for directing your clients ideas, because often a client lacks experience.

After seeing a walkthrough 'just the way the've pictured it' clients are not fully satisfied because 'it's not what they expected'.

So did you sell them what they tought? Did you eventually do exactly what they wanted?

 

rgds

 

nisus

[Ricardo Eloy]

It really depends...

I love to try to create a photorealistic picture. I think it's such a nice challenge! On the other hand, more artistic pictures are much more interesting...

I usually sit with the client to decide how to do the image. Always depending on the client, the project, the design. I mean, some designs ASK for a photo. Others ask for a painting. So, I think this decision relies on the sensibility of the artist (us)!

[AEC3dPro]

Very good topic. Right down my alley.

 

I would like to suggest that it is ultimately the clients call. True, you can try to direct him in a certain vain, but it is ultimately his money and his call.

 

I have found that it depends on the phase of design you are in. Most people are used to seeing the traditional water color/tempera rendering at the end of a project. I try to give my clients a "progressive" rendering. This means, in the schematic and DD phases, I begin w/ a very vague, warm and fuzzy rendering/model, that has been touched up using Piranesi. This helps to aleviate the fear that you have the model and CD's finished by presenting the client w/ a photorealistic rendering too early in the design phase. I usually save the photorealistic rendering for the final product, if at all. This also allows quicker turn-around on design changes and makes re-rendering go much faster w/ little wasted effort.

 

My 2 cents worth.

[Peder]

For architectural illustrations I like realism in lighting. In materials and props, like doorknobs, plants, people etc. it isn´t so important.

 

The way architects usually work with physical models is the way to go for me. Cardboard, wood, transparent plastic etc. This way you give the client an idea of how far developed an idea is. Trying to take that expression and translating it into rendered images is a constant challenge for me.

 

Sometimes visualization tricks people into believing things are more thought through than they are. For this reason I also like collages where rendered images are mixed with other kinds of more abstract elements plans, elevations texts, modelphotos etc.

 

Peder

[Guest hajer]

I always think good business is doing less work for more money …. That why u should always let the customer direct the job not u this way u save ur self allot of misunderstanding and wasted time….

[Guest scott@fortelstudios.com]

Good day,

 

I have found that one must understand that this work we do is commercial art, and therefore done for dollars primarily. What does that have to do with anything? Here you go...

 

As illustrators, we are consultants to our clients, whether in house or otherwise. This puts the responsibility on us to enlighten our clientele of the issues at hand, and to RECOMEND a viable solution or two, all the while working through the problems of how to best present their concept, not our concept, theirs, and to educate them for future collaborations. However, our client’s personal opinions can come into play at any time during the production of a piece, even though they do not communicate it, or are not even aware of it, it does anyway. Ours should not, because we are professionals. This is the most important part of the task of architectural rendering: distilling what is required and being communicated, and insuring that our client needs are reflected within the successful outcome of the work. Some projects/clients need a photorealistic approach simply because that is only way for some people to understand the issues which control outcome, while others can make that leap, and respond well to a loosely rendered watercolor sketch.

 

So in the end, it is our responsibility to lead our clients, to make recommendations, and to insure success. Our goal is not one of self satisfaction, but client satisfaction. Learn this lesson early on, and you will be very successful.

 

A highly realistic image may be required for one phase of a project, but something more conceptual for an earlier phase of a project. Every situation calls for its own solution, and I believe that as digital artists, we should be able to present imagery in both styles. I enjoy very much my clients reaction to a digital sketch, and find the digital medium (wacom pen and PS) to be very effective in doing so.

 

Personally, I love traditional renderings and the character they bring to the table, thanks, first time caller...

[nisus]

hi scott,

 

great entry

 

nisus