WIP/project log interior

[William Alexander]

Ernest,

 

Very cool technique, now that I've seen it.....1001 uses

 

Thanks

 

WDA

[Ernest Burden III]

Very cool technique, now that I've seen it.....1001 uses

 

I don't think its all that original, not my idea. There's an interesting variation of it shown in the SketchUp 'training' website:

"Creating a Model From a Photo - This video tutorial teaches you how to model starting from a 2D photo.(5:37)

Windows Media QuickTime"

http://download.sketchup.com/Tutorials40/D-model%20from%20a%20photo_high.wmv

http://download.sketchup.com/Tutorials40/D-model%20from%20a%20photo.mov

[William Alexander]

Ernest,

 

It's a variation on the sketch-up. Watched that video a while back, sketch-up looks like a very cool app.

It's also a variation on edge modeling a persons face from a background image. The way you did it with camera mapping (it was camera mapped right? LOL)- just clicked, no video instruction needed, the process became obvious for quite a number of uses.

 

Like I said, wether it's your original idea or not- Thanks for showing it!

 

WDA

[Ernest Burden III]

My lovely chairs in situ

[4DM]

Hi Ernest,

 

Interesting chair modelling technique!

 

It's not the way I have ever done it, partly because I cannibalize old models to make new ones, so like to keep the separate elements separate ( though clearly you could split the polys in your model too, I suppose.)

 

And making a single UVW texture map for the whole chair is an unknown method for me. I would always tex the timber(H+V grain) and then the seat or back in fabric, whatever, separately.

 

Would you mind posting the UVW texture? I don't intend to copy it, but I am just curious to see what it looks like? How do you know where to fit the diferent elements? Is this in BodyPaint? (Which I don't have). You could watermark it if you like, but if you prefer not to post it at all, that's cool.

 

Cheers,

 

D.

[Ernest Burden III]

Interesting chair modelling technique!

 

It's not the way I have ever done it, partly because I cannibalize old models to make new ones, so like to keep the separate elements separate ( though clearly you could split the polys in your model too, I suppose.)

 

If I knew what I was doing it would be easier. I'm just stumbling about trying out different ways to make these furniture pieces. I usualld do them in CAD, but it is not really the right tool. Or I have a friend make them in FormZ, he's pretty fast at it. Or but a model off the web, but this client never uses off-the-shelf items, they have it all custom built so I can't just but the 3D model.

 

And making a single UVW texture map for the whole chair is an unknown method for me. I would always tex the timber(H+V grain) and then the seat or back in fabric, whatever, separately.

 

Each UV map is unique to the geometry. This one is not very carefully laid out, it doesn't need to be. The chairs are not the 'star' of the picture. This map just covers all the surfaces with a color and pattern at an anglt that will mostly avoid stretched pixels. I made the woven back an elevational view, the seat a plan with the sides spread out.

 

I did the UV and texturing in BodyPaint, which is a great program. There may be better, but this one works really well. Actually, it was BodyPaint that convinced me to buy Cinema in the first place. I don't know how easy UV mapping is if you don't use it with Cinema. If I make a preliminary map like this one, I can paint on anything that is easier to define in a perspective view and then it saves back to the texture file. Sometimes UV layouts don't make any sense to just look at. I like to make ones I can understand in Photoshop.

[Ernest Burden III]

I'm getting a little worried.

 

I was bugging my client to select a final view. Not that it was stopping me from making progress, I just wanted to FEEL closer to being done with this beasty. So the designer was sending the view choices to the property owner. He came back to us today with comments about how you see too much bar and not enough dining room. (THAT'S why you need two views)! He wanted to see some options outside the space with the walls removed. I did them, and explained about how taking a middle approach presents neither very well, and how a guest at his restaurant would see the bar and dining room as seperate experiences. Yes, they're next to eachother, but when you're at the bar you shouldn't be focusing on the DR wondering when your table will be ready. And once you get seated in the DR you are thinking about your meal, not the bar you just left.

 

Anyway, they are not persuaded. I fear they will insist on a bad view and in the process lose both the feeling of 'being there' and some of the better aspects of the design--the curved plan and the window-wall treatments.

 

Yes, I said all that. No, it doesn't seem to have changed their mind. I will push the point with the designers tomorrow.

[Ernest Burden III]

Working on place settings, among other things.

 

Instances (aka blocks) are great. Its easier to 'nest' them in Cinema than my CAD program or Lightscape. Just drop something under whatever is the 'master' and the new thing becomes part of the instance copies. Pretty good. But what I DO NOT like about the way Cinema handles these 'instance' animals is that the master object must be ON. Turn it off and all its instances turn off also. This is an issue because it means you must use the master, rather than just leave it at 0,0,0 ready to modify if need be.

 

Some place settings are instances, or instances of grouped instances. If I leave copies of instances under a 'null' object then I can move around the sub-parts (like the water glass on the table) per setting. I don't see where using copies of instances is any worse than binding them all ip into other instances.

[Iain Denby]

I hope you don't look back on this job once it's done, and realise that you 'used a sledge hammer to crack a nut'.

[Ernest Burden III]

I hope you don't look back on this job once it's done, and realise that you 'used a sledge hammer to crack a nut'.

 

How else would you do it?

 

 

 

 

Really, I appreciate you making the point. I over-do most projects. I want to do good work, and will put in a lot of effort to do so.

 

One of the great things about drawing is that stuff off in the distance just gets a few pencil wiggles and you move on. In digital you have to be careful that you are not modeling the lug nuts on the wheels of a car that will occupy six pixels.

 

Actually it would be useful to me and other who read all this, if you or others could point out areas that I may be over-doing things, and how you would habe taken a simpler approach.

 

And I'm not done yet.

[Iain Denby]

I guess my comments relate to my own, similar experiences. I tend to assume I will know the best viewpoint to take, and plough on through the modelling, mapping and lighting before I even send the first draft through for approval. Then find out (like you have) that the client wants different things. So, perhaps tie down the exact viewpoint early on, and maybe like 4DM commented on earlier about mapping instead of modelling.

 

I'm curious to know, are you working on other jobs at the same time, because I can't help thinking this all seems very long winded for a job this size. I know you are making additional efforts for all our benifit in this Forum, which is very much appreciated by the way, but it just seems to be going on for ever. (not a critisism, by the way !)

[Ernest Burden III]

plough on through the modelling, mapping and lighting before I even send the first draft through for approval. Then find out (like you have) that the client wants different things. So, perhaps tie down the exact viewpoint early on

 

Agreed. I like to jump into the hardest stuff first, when I should be getting a general massing done. I hate to waste the effort to do a partial model if I'm just going to have to go back to it.

 

And, the design architect whom I usually work directly for, told me to do the drawing from the bar area looking back towards the DR, and I discussed this with the owner at the start also. It's just that when he actually SEES what I told him about 'yes, we will see the DR but it will be smaller in the image' he's reacting. He's paying me, so I have to listen.

 

Attached are where they wanted to go, outside with the wall removed, and wider, panoramic 'we don't mind some distortion'. Well I do. The other view is my attempt to do what they want without completely ruining the rendering.

 

I'm curious to know, are you working on other jobs at the same time...but it just seems to be going on for ever. (not a critisism, by the way !)

 

Yes, I am doing other projects at the same time. I am also using this project to adapt to Cinema4D which is also slowing me down.

 

Last year, in frustration with how many hours I work, my wife declared my career to be a state of slavery.

[Tim Nelson]

2nd shot is better. Less noticeable distortion.

[skogskalle]

agree - second shot is much better...

 

btw - great thread! really interesting to se the workflow of others...

 

//

Kalle

[Ernest Burden III]

2nd shot is better. Less noticeable distortion.

 

It's still a really wide view, over 90 degrees. I usually use 72 degrees or so. Classical perspective training tells us that anything beyond 60 degs. is distorted.

 

But most importantly, its actually IN the space. I really hope they go for this one, or something close.

[Sawyer]

Ernest,

 

(you may have addressed this in an earlier post & I may have missed it)

 

What do you design and what does the designer/architect provide you with? Do you get cut sheets/spec books with wood finishes, placemats, tables, glasses etc and you bid on modeling those exact designer specific elements as part of a package or are you told that the space will fit 80 4 seat tables?

This is what always drive me nuts. Usually I am given nothing of any value as far as specifics so I model or download models that are hit & miss. "No we hate that chair but we like that table" "No they would not have shades like that". One project was held up because the architect didn't have the time to show me the drawer pulls he liked & when we finally met he didn't have anything we just brain stormed together. He decided he wanted inset pulls which was a huge pain as I had modeled all of the cabinets already and had to "cut-in" the pulls. (At least that was the idea I found that with the chosen view the inset was not visable)

 

 

I used to do a lot of theater and stage building. I try to really educate clients that I am buildign a set not a virtual world. But usually everyone forgets that and after a view is agreed upon I get, "It would be really easy to do the exterior now right"?

[jackb602]

Instances (aka blocks) are great. Its easier to 'nest' them in Cinema than my CAD program or Lightscape. Just drop something under whatever is the 'master' and the new thing becomes part of the instance copies. Pretty good. But what I DO NOT like about the way Cinema handles these 'instance' animals is that the master object must be ON. Turn it off and all its instances turn off also. This is an issue because it means you must use the master, rather than just leave it at 0,0,0 ready to modify if need be

 

Hi Ernest,

 

I ran up against this problem too, but there's an easy solution. Drop your master object (or hierarchy) into a null, and turn off the null. Your master object disappears and the instances should stay put.

 

Like you, I really want to do more modeling in Cinema, but have been too busy lately to slow things down by learning a new method of working. On the other hand, I've spent roughly 3 hours and one futile tech support call to learn that FormZ can't do what seems like a basic task, place copies of an object, correctly oriented along a spline. I was able to accomplish the same thing in Cinema (with the great Jenna plugin) in about 10 minutes. So I think this slow part of the learning curve will really pay off eventually. Thanks for keeping up your project log. I've learned alot from it.

 

Jack

[4DM]

Many thanks for the UV Texture explanation and examples, Ernest.

 

Does BodyPaint unwrap those wireframes for you then?

 

I have to admit it is all a bit too complicated for me - I just build chairs out of individual bits and pieces, unless its a freeform organic thing, and join them up till they look right, or match the dims supplied. But I find making furniture quite easy now in C4D. Still prefer to do architecture in VW though.

 

I just use cubic mapping with selection tags, or separate the objects to get the right grain direction. But our finished styles are quite different - I think yours are more impressionistic. Here's how I did a similar chair. (see attached image).

 

I agree with Dibbers, definitely get the rough viewpoint agreed first - and find out who has the last word, and do it their way, albeit subject to your informed advice if they are prepared to listen. There is nothing worse than having several different "bosses" on a job. Let them fight it out among themselves if there is a difference of opinion, and let you know once they have decided.

 

I often tell my clients that I build a virtual "stage set". In other words what you don't see, I don't build. If you want me to build it all (several views, or a big mirror involved somewhere, say) then I have to charge more. They usually understand once it is explained like that.

 

This will save you a lot of wasted time and aggravation.

Also, don't model in detail what is not going to be seen up close.

If they really don't know which view to take, make a very crude block model, almost out of cubes, or even do a freehand thumbnail sketch.

Not many people can do that any more !

 

Cheers,

 

Danny.

[Ernest Burden III]

I think that last view attempt is getting approved, the one inside. It's still a fake because the entry box is turned off, but I have the wall seen so that you don't notice the whole where it should be.

 

My bar bottles:

 

I had made all these nice bar bottles for earlier projects. They were in Lightscape, and I had to translate them into Cinema. This is another example of a step in this project that is taking longer than it should, but next time its largely done. I imported it via VRML and the colors as set in Lightscape came through pretty close, but just as general difuse materials. So I still had some work to do....this time.

 

Unfortunately, bottles are made of glass. Glass material is not good enough in Cinema. Not that there IS a glass material, just what we artists can come up with on our own. In Lightscape you just select 'glass' and it looks amazing, it IS glass. In Cinema it looks like a scanline renderer's attempt at getting 'close'. I realize that is a product of the settings, but so far I have not hit the sweet spot. And with all due respect to STRAT and other architectural artist using Cinema, I don't think anybody has nailed it. There's nothing magic about how Lightscape does it. So I'm sure C4D COULD match LS for glass. I'm just not there. Remember my thread on 'Let There Be Architectural Glass'? We got close, but not there yet. My current glassmat is based heavily on STRAT's.

 

Now, to be fair, the examples below are Lightscape (final raytrace of another project) and Cinema WITHOUT a special lighting setup or GI. Still, close...close.

 

I think the lack of a proper architectural glass keeps Cinema from being the best program for architectural vis. Max saw that need and grabbed the Lightscape glass. What the hell did Rod Recker and/or Stuart Feldman DO way back when? Why is this so hard?

[Ernest Burden III]

Many thanks for the UV Texture explanation and examples, Ernest.

Does BodyPaint unwrap those wireframes for you then?

 

I have to admit it is all a bit too complicated for me - I just build chairs out of individual bits and pieces, unless its a freeform organic thing, and join them up till they look right, or match the dims supplied.

 

Yes, BodyPaint is used to setup the UV layout. You can do just about any arrangement you like. For example, if you start with a photo of a real object as your texture, you could project your model in a similar view and then move the points around so it fits the photo, and the picture would become the map on your model. Or setup elevational views, plan, cylindical projections, whatever. I tend to use elevations or iso type views because I can understand it. Some of the mapping types are weird looking.

 

The point is, you can create a UV map just like the type you now use, it just all exists on ONE texture. Different parts of the model can 'share' a part of the map, it can use alpha for transparency, make a copy to do a bump or specular or displacemet map. Also, you can re-size the map without having to re-map the object. If your map is done at 1200x1200 and you decide its overkill, resize to 600x600 and there is no difference to the renderer.

[Ernest Burden III]

there's an easy solution. Drop your master object (or hierarchy) into a null, and turn off the null. Your master object disappears and the instances should stay put.

 

Thank you!

[Ernest Burden III]

What do you design and what does the designer/architect provide you with? Do you get cut sheets/spec books with wood finishes, placemats, tables, glasses etc and you bid on modeling those exact designer specific elements as part of a package or are you told that the space will fit 80 4 seat tables?

 

I design none of it. I learned a long time ago to not design anything, because its still up to the client and unless they sing off on me choosing, I would get the same "oh, but not THOSE chairs".

 

Also, this client designs every item in their spaces, tables, chaits, cabinets, everything. Others do leave bits to me, but not this client.

 

Occasionally I will do a quick sketch for a client when I see design problem that show up in perspectives. They never listen. I'm just the renderer.

 

My old boss, renderer Brian Burr, was a fully trained and licenced architect (in Australia) but he would never fill in for a client. He would wait until they sent us a drawing. He was capable of doing it at least as well, but figured that was the clients role, he was the renderer. He was also not shy to tell me what he THOUGHT of some clients' design skills, too. I learned a lot from his 'crits'.

[Ernest Burden III]

I'm getting the real lighting in now. I've been putting lights into any fixtures as I've made them, but am only now 'turning them on' to see how they work together.

 

One of the last big items I had to make was a chandelier made of three slightly different plastic pieces arranged randomly in a drum shape, lit from inside. I made that as a polygon object with a white material for the inside faces and another mat for the surface. I used a cylindrical map (done as a UV) to put on the variation, color, and little light-leaking gaps between the plastic pieces (used an alpha channel for the gaps). It's supposed to look a bit rough. I made the white illuminating, since there was no other easy way to get lights into this fixture, and it would have a very soft distribution anyway.

 

Damn this chandelier looks nice in the space!

[William Alexander]

Ernest,

 

"It's ALIVE!" -what I mean is you are really bringing the space to life. Quite amazing to watch the progress.

 

Your percieved 'over kill' on detial- Yes you don't need to do it, but don't you think it gives you a greater intimacy with the space? The depth of 'info' that allows you to really hone the view, vs, thats good enough you can't see it and never even consider it.

 

I'd tell you to keep up the good work, but your miles ahead of that thought and on auto pilot to boot:)

 

WDA

[Tim Nelson]

Oooh, looking good! What kind of flooring is that?

 

One thing I've found very beneficial for my work is setting up the lighting before I do all the materials. Setting the lighting up with an all gray material makes it really easy to see the light distribution and lets you do fast adjustments because you don't spend time waiting for rendering reflections & fancy bitmaps, etc. The nice thing about Vray is that you can do a material override where if you already have set up your custom materials, you can check the material override option which will apply the same material to all objects - it's a real timesaver. Another great option in Vray is the 'reflect/refract' switch. You can turn them all off to do speedy tests in lieu of the material override option.

 

Are you finding it easy to do lighting tests in C4D? What is your usual strategy/method at this point?