Interiors vs. Exteriors

[mills-illustration]

How come there are so many photo real interior renderings as opposed to photo real exteriors?

 

Is it because interiors are easier to create?

Is it because it is difficult to find the specs to model a building or structure?

Is it difficult to create a unique structure? Or is it something else?

 

I don't want to create drama with this thread. Just curious what people think.

 

[RyderSK]

Interiors are like 100 times easier, I surely know why I like them more :- ) The GI alone is what makes them real, there's not a lot of that outside..

 

Interiors nowadays are pretty much throw in any light, enough performance and the result is rather real. It can be pretty or ugly, but still rather real. The interiors are mostly rather easy, self-contained structures, with only little ties to outside. They're by large human made, and perfectly geometric and simple.

 

Now photoreal exterior is pretty much a top level wizardry. Unless it's a photo-montage, building an organic environment (let's face it, 90degree perfect walls vs. million imperfections the world outside contains) is close to impossible for 95perc. of scenarios despite the amout of work you do. And then no matter how nice or ugly it is, you won't cross the uncanny valley. It takes tremendous effort and human resources to create that illusion for motion in VFX, but for still image by small studios or freelancers (dominating workforce in archviz)? Downright impossible.

[Chris MacDonald]

Vegetation, vegetation, vegetation.

 

If you can't make the plants look real, then you can't make the image look real. It is very difficult to achieve a truly convincing exterior shot when there are plants involved.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I agree with Chris and Juraj and would add to it that Exteriors come with a heavy dose of irregularity and general variety that is hard to mimic in 3D. I would also submit that the number of examples for interiors is hundreds of times higher than we have/see exterior examples. Exterior cams (3D) are often from impossible angles and so it is largely guess-work as to what reality is.

 

I think this is a good question to discuss. I like to hear peoples thoughts, especially 2 people like Chris and Juraj. Thanks.

[Scott Schroeder]

Another big one is cleanliness.

 

In the all-to-clean world of arch viz, many exteriors look great yet unrealistic to the eye since they are so pristine. The client probably won't want to see the smashed in wad of gum on the sidewalk. They want to see the perfectly washed windows, no rain streaks on surfaces, no spec of dirt what so ever anywhere.

 

You can get away with minimal environment dirt and wear with interiors as we can assume that the person in there is just a neat freak or the structure has just been built and has not yet had full human wear.

[Chris MacDonald]

Agreed.

 

Adding imperfections is about two things I suppose:

 

1) Timescale - let's not kid ourselves that we are often up against it when it comes to deadlines, so spending time on something as "frivolous" as adding dirt to windows often means that it's this kind of detail that ends up getting the chop.

 

2) Subtlety - No architect or client is going to want their grand vision compromised by a filthy building, no matter how slick those filthy specular highlights look. I have however found that just adding enough dirt to almost be imperceptible is just right - it really ought not to draw attention to itself. This is the case for a lot of things in Arch Vis though; you don't notice that it's there but you sure as hell know it doesn't look right when it's not.

 

When it comes to vegetation it still astonishes me that despite having amassed quite a decent foliage library over the years just how long it can take to browse for and import stock models, etc. Especially when you're trying to mimic a landscape plan with actual species listed. I suppose it also doesn't help when I don't like the way they have set up their shaders either. Translucency enabled on a leaf with no thickness and opacity maps with filtering enabled? Blasphemy I tell you!

[RyderSK]

Up to this day there are still no sensible vegetation models. All of them suck hard. I can't even decide which ones look uglier. They can compete in which one looks less like tree.

So I totally agree on Vegetation. It's been by done right by two people exactly only (Alex, and Marla) and that's it. 2014...

[John Dollus]

You know, it's funny you mention this. With traditional illustration, you see 9 exteriors to every 1 interior. I was looking through the past several years of AIP publications and interiors are hard to come by.

I have my own theories about this which have to do with the perception of reality and natural vs manufactured environments.

[TomasEsperanza]

...and even if the whole external scene is not 3D and the model is camera matched... matching the model to the background presents a few challenges; matching materials, and lighting with the real world image, the camera match itself, and then any additional comping.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jasonstewart]

I have always felt its really hard to do a photo real exterior because the scale is so much larger and you just don't have the pixel density to add those small details that make it look realistic. With a interior you have what a 20'x20' space with 4k pixels, on exterior you have 100+' again 4k pixels.

 

Vegetation is the bane of my existence from time to time.

[Coolhand78]

Up to this day there are still no sensible vegetation models. All of them suck hard. I can't even decide which ones look uglier. They can compete in which one looks less like tree.

So I totally agree on Vegetation. It's been by done right by two people exactly only (Alex, and Marla) and that's it. 2014...

 

who is Marla..?

[Chris MacDonald]

Alessandro prodan

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Coolhand78]

Alessandro prodan

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

cool, thanks man i'll check it out...

[Coolhand78]

Up to this day there are still no sensible vegetation models. All of them suck hard. I can't even decide which ones look uglier. They can compete in which one looks less like tree.

So I totally agree on Vegetation. It's been by done right by two people exactly only (Alex, and Marla) and that's it. 2014...

 

So when you have to do exteriors what do you prefer? Photoshopping plants in? or do you just have some select 3D plants that you think look good, and stick with those? its always a point of contention for me too, as nothing screams 3D as much as crappy vegetation...!

[Chris MacDonald]

I think it's down to proximity. You can make things look fairly believable at a distance, but when you get up close it all starts to unravel and look very much 3D.

[RyderSK]

I think it's down to proximity. You can make things look fairly believable at a distance, but when you get up close it all starts to unravel and look very much 3D.

 

Yes, this.

 

I just use what I like most..with some regrets and call it a day. It's full3D in my work-flow.

[Devin Johnston]

All of my plants are 3d for the same reasons as Juraj stated, I just don't have the time to compose 2d elements in a scene anymore. The same goes for my people there almost always 3d unless I need someone up close in the foreground. We refer to them as zombies because they look so horrific close up, of all the things in the arch viz world I'm most disappointed in the people we have to choose from. Most of them are posed in crazy ways wearing cloths you'd find on a hooker or a homeless person.

[Chris MacDonald]

Yeah, I feel the axyz people are getting close to what needs to be done - but still not good enough for closeups. They seem to focus on keeping the poly count low more than I'd like to see. I wouldn't care about throwing a few million polygons worth of trees into a scene, so why would I want to use low resolution people?

[Scott Schroeder]

My big problem with the axyz people is just the sheer dumb poses they give you which in turn just makes you scene look 100% 3D. Last time I walked down a city street there aren't too many people just standing around pointing at things or standing there with their arms folded across their chest and giving you an absolute look of "what are you looking at ya moron". I won't even get into the morgue like stares that all of their models have either. All 3D people collections that are out there seem to want to bring the focus of the image onto their people, when in reality the people need to blend into the scene as in real life.

 

Plus they make it virtually impossible to edit any of the textures, because they feel the need to give you only one diffuse texture that is still in it's raw scan form so it's all over the place. So you can't get a nice SSS going nor can you get a nice fabric falloff on their various clothing items. For the price you pay, you really get a crappy locked in model.