How healthy is the Arch-Viz industry in comparison?

[Justin Hunt]

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/09/how-healthy-is-our-vfx-industry/

 

Interesting read that is very relevant to our industry, problably one of the more level headed debates going around

 

jhv

[Nils Norgren]

I would say that the Arch-Viz industry suffers from some of the same problem as the VFX business. With a few important differences, the blog post you link to has a few fundamental points (for those who have not read the whole thing) 1. The VFX business has razor thing margins 2. There is only so much (sporadic) work to go around for a world-wide pool of firms. 3. Cost (mostly in manpower) is high. 4. There is willingness among the industry (world-wide) to cannibalize themselves (work at a loss).

 

If we look on a Macro scale, there is much more (pure volume) of real-estate development happening than movies, tv, etc. The dollar amount might be smaller, but if you do a search on total number of local architects, developers, construction companies, engineering firms in your area the numbers are large. The amount of work should far outstrip the amount of work in the VFX business. The relative (don't get insulted here, readers) "sexiness" of doing arch-viz vs VFX is less, which should allow (theoretically) for better profit margins, people aren't falling over each other to work for a loss on projects just to get their name in the credits.

 

I would say that as our (and the VFX) industry matures there will be a leveling of all these trends, the VFX business may be a boom-bust economy for many of the firms, for the most part many have small permanent staff, and grow and shrink based on the job(s), if they can manage that unpredictability, they should survive. The VFX industry has the legacy of the practical FX, as we have the legacy of traditional illustrators, but in both cases technology has flipped the tables on how things are done.

 

I have always tried to be skeptically optimistic in my outlook for the business. There have been many instances of declarations of "the end is near" in our work. Back in 1995 we had a architect as a neighbor in our shared office space, who told another architect in the building we would be gone in a few months.

 

The linked article is a sober read, but I personally think that as we evolve as a visual-technological-creative society, those creating the images/media will never be obsolete, however the business models will evolve.

 

Take a look at the music industry, as things changed based on technology, the labels/distributors/middlemen were the ones who were most affected (and the ones who put up the biggest fight), the musicians are just as relevant as ever.

 

my 2 ¢

 

Nils - Neoscape

[matthewspencer]

That's well-said, Nils. I think a point that you implicitly make is that with the real estate brokers and other firms still executing tons of projects, graphics/vis/CAD people shouldn't be afraid of less-glamorous work. Is it all about having a sexy portfolio to put online, or is it about paying the bills too? My guess is that Neoscape completes a lot of conservative work for very vanilla clients, in between show-stopping projects.

 

Personally I've never been busier, but the ratio of my "bread and butter" work (line drawings, solid modeling, etc.) vs. my expressive design/rendering work is probably about 8:1.

 

This also relates to the conversation going on in another thread about outsourcing work. While it's true that an office of 15 drones working 14hr days in China can give my client faster results, he knows he can't call them and discuss expressive shading/material nuances, and that they can't hop on the subway and come into the office for a last-minute briefing at 5:30pm.

 

Which relates to another point. I feel the majority of the people who are still completing plenty of work are the ones occasionally peeling themselves away from the internet for shit's sake. No offense Mottle. It's a truism at this point, but it really is all about in-person connections, coffee, and beer.

[Frosty]

Back in 1995 we had a architect as a neighbor in our shared office space, who told another architect in the building we would be gone in a few months.

 

Nils,

Is that architect still around?

[Scott Schroeder]

Just look at what happened with Digital Domain in Florida. Who was hurt in all of that? The CEO? Heck no, he made millions. The workers on the studio floor are the ones that got hurt. There was another article where the author speculated that if you make management feel the pain of their moron decisions, you'd see the VFX industry shape up in no time flat.

 

Like arch viz pre 2008, there is a lot of poorly qualified people in the industry looking to make a quick buck. Arch viz had it's regular clean out post 2008 and we are a little healthier for it. A lot of the glut and waste has rolled out (probably to VFX, ha!) and what we're left with are companies who actually know a little about the business side of things. Our cleansing process was more immediate as we are tied a little tighter to economic ups and downs. The VFX is tied to the movie industry which tends to lag behind a recession by a few years, and now they are starting to see their cleansing process take place. What VFX is experiencing is no different than what the games industry is facing right now. Gamer numbers are way down, sales are way down, and once vaunted studios are having to shutter their doors.

 

To some extent both games and VFX are starting to suffer for their own mistakes and rushing things out. They put out junk for so long and we bought it, well, because most of us had disposable income. That is no longer the case. I'm not going to spend $100 bucks for Battlefield 3 with the premium pack and have it be constantly broken. I'm not going to buy a game at the release date and it needs a hotfix a day later.

 

But as Nils points out, in games and VFX, you have people willing to do anything, and I mean anything, to get their names in the credits. Arch viz is a little less sexy than that, so we can tend to have a few more morals.

 

EDIT: This was the article I was referencing: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118059176.html?cmpid=RSS|News|LatestNews and this is the quote "That's everything that's wrong with U.S. business in a nutshell. Executives and managers commit their companies to huge risks while protecting themselves from personal consequences. Meanwhile employees feel the pain when things go bad. I think we'd be better off in the long run if we heard more howls of "I'm ruined!" from executive offices."

[Justin Hunt]

Very true, I find the comment about evolving/ maturing spot on. The arch-viz industry seems much more open to evolving and developing good business practices so they stay in business tomorrow. I wonder how much this has to do with the amount of small one/two man band studios in comparison to the larger studios and that our relatively small budgets force us to be more efficient?

 

It will be interesting to see how many of those VFX guys transition to Arch-Viz and how successful they will be.

 

jhv

[Nic H]

Interesting article but I would consider VFX to be more 'niche' and on/off compared to architectural work - but I really have little idea beyond reading a few 'vfx is dead' articles

 

There is also a lack of good 3D trained people who are willing to work on architectural stuff making it hard to find specialist or even all around generalist staff. Perhaps the upside of this volatility would be that some of these VFX trained people come looking for work in architectural studios and hopefully impart some knowledge.

[Josef Wienerroither]

There is also a lack of good 3D trained people who are willing to work on architectural stuff making it hard to find specialist or even all around generalist staff. Perhaps the upside of this volatility would be that some of these VFX trained people come looking for work in architectural studios and hopefully impart some knowledge.

 

Really ?

in my part of the world it's a bit the opposite: the quality level of archviz requested/required is that low and most of the time there is no/only ultralow budget for this. Most of the time architects are expected to do all the visualization stuff as a by-product. Each time i looked on the various architecture related job boards here, the job descriptions says something like "3d knowledge required" etc, but only as side effect

[Nic H]

the quality and speed of turn around required here is generally high and has to be above the level of the in house design dev 3d staff. thats the reason they come to you and is your point of differentiation.

 

you can rarely find staff that have been working doing in house arch vis with any knowledge of editing, compositing, animation, use of real world cameras, design training, art theory etc etc.

 

most of them will learn to do exactly what they need to do to please the in house architects and have no more time or drive to extend skills beyond the bare minimum. which is why it would be good to get some proper 3d trained people with knowledge of gaming and vfx work doing arch vis...after all it is just pictures / animations of buildings and environments we make -and not some convoluted long and arduous design documentation process

 

people often get caught up in the 'architecture' side of things - there should be more emphasis on the quality and feel of the image rather than than pretending it is some kind of 'official document' (unless a verified view)

[hockley91]

A good friend of mine in town has had very large ups and downs with his workload. He helped me out a few years ago when I was let go in 2009, so I try and return the favor when I can.

 

I feel the current trend right now is "anyone can make a 3D rendering" so why should we have to pay $$$ for it? That's the general feeling I get when I read and talk to people about this stuff. I think BIM is taking a more central role in all the AEC industries and I think even we as visualization specialists need to take part in that and diversify ourselves as other people have been doing as things change in Design and Construction.

 

The more I use BIM (Revit, Navisworks, Design Review, 3D Studio Max, Sketchup, Unity....yada yada yada) I find that I can contribute more and I think my skills come into play when this software is utilized on certain projects. I think by diversifying my skillset, I can be utilized in more areas of the design process rather than be pigeonholed into just 3D Visualization. It also opens up alternate options for projects when it comes to visualization. Should we do real-time? Should we just do an animation? Should we do still renderings? Being able to help in that area and coming up with options that others don't even realize is possible makes a tremendous difference when trying to sell our services or just trying to impress a client.

 

Now, maybe that only works where I'm at right now....I don't know. But, our field is "visual" and we need to diversify it to other areas that have hardly been tapped.

[Scott Schroeder]

people often get caught up in the 'architecture' side of things - there should be more emphasis on the quality and feel of the image rather than than pretending it is some kind of 'official document' (unless a verified view)

 

This is very true. I once created an image that had depth and feeling to it, and a more dramatic camera angle to add to the punch of the view. It was a massive hanger type space, so you had to use the camera to create something more dramatic. I showed it to the architect I was freelancing for and got the response, "Ehhh, do you think it's too dramatic? This is for the board of directors, I think they won't get it."

 

So, it was back to the 5'4" perfectly level human eye camera view. I've also found that architects tend to want to show off their architecture and that tends to lead to quite dull camera views. They are more concerned about seeing the building as a whole rather than using portions of it, that you can still tell what the building is and it's function, and generating emotion. It's up to us are the artists to try to push back and change the perceptions. Of course, we can only push so far. Sometimes it is better to give up the small battle in order to keep future jobs coming in. Many times architects and other people will listen to you but you have to build trust in them first that this new fancy-dancy way of looking at architecture will work.

 

It's the same thing when using color to give a mood to an image. You can try to explain until you pass out how you used warm and cool environment colors to draw the eye in a image, but all you'll get in return is, "Yeah, but that's not the paint swatch I called out. You are showing Swiss Mocha and I wanted Swiss Coffee." Then they pull out the paint color fan deck and say, "See! Swiss Coffee!"

 

It's a slow process but those studios, firms, and solo artists that are constantly adapting and changing should not have to really worry about the health of their slice of this industry. The more you can learn the better off you are.

[Nils Norgren]

Nils,

Is that architect still around?

 

He is still around, but we don't talk to him much, we have moved twice since then. When we shared space he was a great source of quotes, like "when competing for a job, low-ball, then screw them with change orders!" - needless to say, we never took ANY of his advice.

 

-Nils

[Umesh Raut]

To add to Scott's observations - that's why they still want to have the classic two point perspective, no matter what, with the camera and its target positioned @ Z 5'3-4". The verticals are plumb that way. When I try to show my clients dramatic camera angles and colors for that special feeling, its immediately shredded with that same old 'I know better than you in this field' look and tone. And because he pays me, I have to respect his (Indian) Rupees more than anything else.

 

On a side note, the gaming industry is mainly affected by the new smartphones more than anything else, 'what goes up comes down' applies to them on a faster rate because they went up with warp speed.

Edited September 22, 2012 by umeshraut

[Scott Schroeder]

Mobile gaming has had it's hand in traditional gaming's slide, but even they are getting pummeled. From Popcap to Vostu have had to shed staff and there are constant rumors that Zynga is going to cut positions. Gaming, like movies, just isn't as popular now that people have to be aware of their money. Entertainment always lags behind in a recession, they are one of the few industries not to feel an immediate pinch in economic downtime. But their time does come and it's leaving a scorched Earth in it's wake.

 

Much of the woes of this CG industry as a whole is very similar to what plagues professional athletes and movie stars. It's simple poor money management. They don't forsee that there will be tight times. These studios rake in the cash, and spend it just as fast as it comes in with lavish studios and insane management salaries. They fail to realize each and every time that Plants Versus Zombies, Angry Birds, etc will eventually stop selling and slow down. They fail to see the overhead costs in that massive studio space. They think that going public with their stock will generate them more millions, then it craps out right in front of their face. Facebook and Zynga, looking your way at this one.

 

So as a whole this industry is generally quite healthy at the core, but like everyone else in this global economic recession we as an industry just need to be more aware of where our money is being invested.

[Chris MacDonald]

It's the same thing when using color to give a mood to an image. You can try to explain until you pass out how you used warm and cool environment colors to draw the eye in a image, but all you'll get in return is, "Yeah, but that's not the paint swatch I called out. You are showing Swiss Mocha and I wanted Swiss Coffee." Then they pull out the paint color fan deck and say, "See! Swiss Coffee!"

 

I had to laugh when I read this as it's happened so many times! I find things are gradually getting better though, as I often forward superb images (to aspire to) to the lead architects and a short bit on why these images work so well, and why we should follow suit. Taking an active stance on trying to get them to see things from a visualisation perspective.

[stanleyscrave]

As the field of arch-viz gains the technologies of the VFX artisan, so the level of quality has soared....

[John Dollus]

As the field of arch-viz gains the technologies of the VFX artisan, so the level of quality has soared....

 

The reverse can also be said.

[Iain Denby]

people often get caught up in the 'architecture' side of things - there should be more emphasis on the quality and feel of the image rather than than pretending it is some kind of 'official document' (unless a verified view)

 

I like that. I shall use the following as a response when appropriate: " Guys, it's an architectural illustration, not an official Government document FFS!"

[Justin Hunt]

I have used this before, which made them nit-pick even more

[hockley91]

We've gone to school boards and showed them renderings of facilities and it's been mentioned that the color does not match the color boards. What we have done is tell them, "Hey, this color looks totally different outside than under fluorescent light in here."....I have also personally showed clients photos of an arbitraty brick wall over a period of day. The color changes are ridiculous if it's in the sun, in shadow and the amount of sunlight hitting the surface. It changes color over time. I think actually showing something like that helped for them to understand that yeah....this is an architectural illustration and it's an acceptable representation of what this thing will look like.

[carlotristan3d]

We've gone to school boards and showed them renderings of facilities and it's been mentioned that the color does not match the color boards. What we have done is tell them, "Hey, this color looks totally different outside than under fluorescent light in here."....I have also personally showed clients photos of an arbitraty brick wall over a period of day. The color changes are ridiculous if it's in the sun, in shadow and the amount of sunlight hitting the surface. It changes color over time. I think actually showing something like that helped for them to understand that yeah....this is an architectural illustration and it's an acceptable representation of what this thing will look like.

We had the same experience, but on the flip side. We presented to a design panel but we made our drawings very technically correct almost like a verified view. Got rejected, next round we heavily photoshopped our visuals and took a lot of creative lisences. It was approved overwhelmingly. The fact that the design panel is composed mostly of architects might have something to do with their reception of the type of images. When we moved on to Development Permit approval, we played safe and opted for technical correctness rather than artistry and got approved. That has been the company's battle plan, technical correctness first. Which really eliminates the artist in the workflow.

[M V]

people often get caught up in the 'architecture' side of things - there should be more emphasis on the quality and feel of the image rather than than pretending it is some kind of 'official document' (unless a verified view)

 

We are not rendering Transformers 4 here. We get caught up in it because that's the nature of this field. I don't know a single architect that would rather have you understand film art history rather than construction detailing. THEY DONT CARE. I repeat. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ART. They want a 3D image that looks "good enough" and they want it for 1/10 of what you should be charging. That's the trend now and that will be the trend going forward as far I see it.

[Justin Hunt]

Architects do care about the art and the detailing, even if the design is a heap of crap the architect still want it to look like the best thing since sliced bread. Developers care most about the art and city planners just care about the detail and accuracy.

 

Now that things are starting to pick up, we are getting more and more conceptual and design work. At this stage the details dont matter, what matters is the Wow factor. Grab the attention and get the money men excited. Later once the idea has been sold then we get into the details and making this thing work.

 

jhv

[M V]

I agree that they want their design to look its best. My point is that they do not care about the artistic elements that we would spend hours over like camera angles, depth of field and hours of color balance and curves corrections. Hours = Dollars and I think most clients would rather get a less expensive rendering then a Vyonyx work of art. There is a place for those types of renders. Just like there is a place for a Gehry or Herzog and de Meuron building. It's just not commonplace.

 

Don't get me wrong. I want every rendering I produce to be a perfect piece of well composed art but at the end of the day, I have to do what my clients want both in visual and budget terms.