Is the still image still an effective way of communicating ideas?

[charlotteseaman]

For my dissertation i have been researching companies like Neoscape that use filmic sequences to sell architecture, this has lead me to ask if a still image is an effective way of communicating ideas? Can the expensive budgets required for filmic approaches to visualization be justified? What kind of project justifies the cost of a walkthrough?

 

I would love to know what you all thought about this. Any opinions and different approaches to this would be appreciated.

 

 

Neoscape showreel:

[Matt McDonald]

You use the terms "sell architecture" and "communicate ideas" sort of in an interchangeable fashion but really they aren't. For "selling architecture" animations are probably the best way to go, if one can afford it. That doesn't mean that stills are ineffective, particularly when accounting for budget.

 

As far as "communicating ideas" I would argue that the sill image is the preferred method of doing so. If you are communicating ideas I think you are early on in the design process and an animation is not only overkill, it is likely to cause concern in the client's mind that he or she might not be able to change things.

[CliveG]

I may be old fashioned, but to me the hand drawn sketch is still an effective means of communication or presenting ideas.

 

It depends on a variety of different things (your audience, the type of project, the stage of project) what is going to be most appropriate method of communicating - but at it's most basic - this is not a "one size fits all" industry, when it is - it's dead

 

Heck there are architects that do presentations with a four inch paint brush....

[Justin Hunt]

A badly done animation or still can be disastrous to a sales campaign if it doesn't grab the audience right away and keeps it. Once you have lost your audiences interest it is very difficult to get it back, no matter how good the architecture is.

 

Similarly a highly polished image or animation may not be appropriate when its too early in the project status, and the client would be throwing good money after bad redoing high quality animations every time the design evolves.

 

Many times we have been asked to produce a AAA quality animation long before the clients and architects have any idea what the building is going to look like. Why? because they need to start selling the space to prospective tenants sooner rather than later. Sure I can take your money and put an animation together, just as long as you understand that in the end its not going to look anything like the final design and will have to be redone, which is going to cost you many $$$$'s more than if you wait until the design is firmed up. In this case still would be far more effective both in cost and design efficiency.

[notamondayfan]

The phrase "horses for courses" comes to mind, sometimes stills are perfect, other times animations are.

 

Also you can't really compare stills vs animation like for like, as they are two different medias. Perhaps a more direct comparison would be CGI vs watercolours, or augmented reality vs cardboard models?

 

Dean

[dande]

Photomontages are still required by clients for communicating how the structure will fit into the landscape. Especially when it come to planning

[RyderSK]

I would say "communicating ideas" =/= "informational value" , and with this in mind, I would say technique/form is more important than media itself.

Neither still image nor video in photorealistic portrayal communicate the ideas in way abstract form does. That's why simple sketch or grotesque collage (OMA) provide better ground for discussion about project. And then I would argue still image is more than sufficient media as well.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

It only takes one image to sell a project. It just needs to be a damn good image.

[Scott Schroeder]

We recently did a public outreach (aka gripe at the architects night) for one of our larger projects and we took along both a video and large images to show. I noticed one interesting thing when people viewed both. The video drew more positive attention but vastly less discussion points other than the usual "Wow!" The images is where the discussion, both positive and negative, really started to happen. In terms of generating discussion points, as everyone has been saying, images are the better media. If you want to generate buzz, an animation might be the way to go.

 

In my mind one of the more effective videos recently produced was the one dbox did for the Miami Convention Center, though I'm sure at a substantial cost to create.

 

[Nils Norgren]

For my dissertation i have been researching companies like Neoscape that use filmic sequences to sell architecture, this has lead me to ask if a still image is an effective way of communicating ideas? Can the expensive budgets required for filmic approaches to visualization be justified? What kind of project justifies the cost of a walkthrough?[/Quote]

 

Hi Charlotte, I am one of the founders of Neoscape, I would be happy to talk to you about the industry. Your question is a good one, it should be stated that only about 15-20 percent of our jobs are films. Films and still renderings can serve common purpose or vastly divergent ones, the cost of each covers a wide range with many overriding factors.

 

An interesting component of the question was mentioned by the others in this thread, the client's intended outcome when commissioning the work plays a role in determining the approach, (of course) budget play a part also.

 

My 2¢

 

-Nils Norgren - Neoscape

[charlotteseaman]

.Hi Charlotte, I am one of the founders of Neoscape, I would be happy to talk to you about the industry. Your question is a good one, it should be stated that only about 15-20 percent of our jobs are films. Films and still renderings can serve common purpose or vastly divergent ones, the cost of each covers a wide range with many overriding factors.

 

An interesting component of the question was mentioned by the others in this thread, the client's intended outcome when commissioning the work plays a role in determining the approach, (of course) budget play a part also.

 

Hi Nils, I practically fell off my chair in surprise for your contribution and would love to pick your brains more about the industry, Hows the best way to contact you with some questions or would you prefer i continue to post on here?

 

Iv'e been writing a case study about Neoscape as part of the dissertation so iv'e been thinking about why a film is appropriate for one client and not another. It seems like there is a fine line.

 

Thanks

Charlotte

Edited November 4, 2013 by charlotteseaman

[charlotteseaman]

Hi all, sorry for the slow reply iv'e been away. Thanks for the input it has given me something to think about. From what i gather it's an open ended question so it completely depends on the project.

 

Another point iv'e been researching is the use of virtual reality headsets like the Oculus rift. It's not mainstream yet and personally i don't think the technology is advanced enough to compare it with still image and animation but what does everyone else think?

 

Thanks

Charlotte

[Scott Schroeder]

If you are looking into Oculus rift you need to read the research on simulator sickness and how it affects up to 40-50% of users to varying degrees. If you are trying to sell an image, you certainly don't need your end viewer feeling like they are going to throw up. In the most basic terms, when a human is viewing 3D, sometimes the brain can't process dual 3D views (the fake one and the real world) and is tricked into thinking that you have been poisoned. The best way to expel poison is to purge the stomach.

 

There is a great research paper from the US Army on the effect of simulator sickness in training of their pilots.

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/19/4636508/oculus-rift-is-working-to-solve-simulator-sickness (the link is either super slow or down for the moment so hopefully it comes back)

 

http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperVis/virtual.env/percept.iss/simulate.htm

[hockley91]

This is a still image I did for a bus transit hub at a major intersection. They just wanted to see an overall of the building in the site. I think this communicates very well what is happening. The great thing about once the model is built is that you can then pretty much do additional stills or an animation if needed. We did some other views, but this was the one that told the story best...

[taylorcupp]

Not sure if you are still researching this but check out this review of the Rift.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/7/5285776/hands-on-with-crystal-cove-the-new-oculus-rift-prototype

 

I can attest. It does resolve many of the motion sickness issues that some said it previously had. Although, after hours of use, I personally have never had an issue. Additionally, with Oculus targeting the design market for their product, I do think more streamlined processes than the current porting of models over from design software to gaming software will come on the scene following the release of a consumer version of the Rift - google Spacemaker VR for an example.

 

I really do think that VR approaches to portraying a design are going to emerge onto the scene in the coming years, replacing SOME of the non-interactive, non-spatial, static presentation methods of still renderings and animations. At the same time, I think that well done stills and animations will always have a place as they can be more controlled by the designer.

[jordanp]

Full Disclosure: I work for Lagoa.

 

Lagoa is focused on communicating ideas through collaborative scene editing and rendering. How about somewhere in between a video and a still - interactive browser-based rendering?

 

Here's an example of an interactive architectural scene rendered in Lagoa. Click on the image to begin loading, then click on the green picture window to start the render. You can pan, rotate, and zoom the scene, while still communicating a photorealistic rendering to your clients.

 

In this manner, we as designers can share our visions more easily with clients and partners. I think it could really change how we share our work with others over the Internet.

Edited January 13, 2014 by jordanp

[Guest dialog]

Stills are invaluable during the beginning design phase to help the client understand the design. Have found in my time that there is more demand in the Architecture company I am at for stills than for animations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[harryhirsch]

Agree with Desmond...depends on the circumstances and the task...Stills are simply efficient...when it comes to big projects a lot of people are involved...Yes there are commisioned projects but more often there will be an architectural competition, the jury and the government has to judge the design of several projects at once...for them it is not so much the quality of the picture, a jury has to judge the quality of the design.

If there are a lot competitiors the Jury will check the siteplan or the physical model only in the first round.

It takes a while to understand an architectural project, so less is more in this case (means a picture will do). Newspapers are involved to inform the public of the future project and for the papers a picture is easier to handle...And an animation or a movie would cost the design office a lot more money and time.

In some European countries there is a tendency to exclude renderings to lower the prize money and to judge fair, some people think that renderings are a form of cheating or they show a faked reality that can not be achieved....

I would say Stills are most important and movies can transport additional ideas...however-for the the big competitions in China the competitiors have to produce a short movie....5-10 minutes..and the government will pay the designers a lump sum for all the efforts while Designers in Europe wont get any money when they join a competition. So Asia might be the market for your ''filmic approaches''