Ricardo Eloy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I don't know if you guys have noticed this, but there's been lots of posts (on the Critiques Forums) with titles like: - VRay house - VRay Free first attempt - VRay live out (this is my personnal favourite ) - MR FG Living Room - and so on... It seems to me like the render engine is becoming more important to these guys than the design itself. Is it so important that it's actually worth naming a project with the engine's name? The question is: are third party renderers slowly becoming a kind of plague to CG? I mean, people seem to value the renderer more than any design or artistic skills... What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think that people are seeing these amazing looking images and they want to be able to duplicate that work. I think that leads people into using what ever engine they think will yield the better image for time spent. Personally I know that I've spent a lot of time just learning my render engine so when I see images created by it or other engines I want to know what setting were use, and how it was set up. I don't think it's bad because honestly I don't do any design, I'm handed a model as asked to make it look good. What ever tool will allow me to do that quickly and with good quality I'm going to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Have to say I thought exactly the same when I saw 'Vray live out' (I'm not even sure what that means.) If someone wants to know what's been used, they normally ask, but even this is dangerous because people will think 'ooh I could do that if I had VRay(or whatever)' and rush out to buy it, only to be disappointed that they still have to learn how to get to the VRay stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 why title your post "VRAY interior" or "MR interior" and not just "interior" ??? most strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecastillor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think i understand what you mean, but you have to remember that this is not an architecture or design website, but , as the name says "CGARCHITECH"....CG! I think the vast majority of us that post here are working on architecture visualization and not solely on architecture design, therefore its more important for us to know how to represent the architecture of our clients than the design itself. Thats why the focus on the rendering engines and so forth. I spent about 4 years learning in architecture school about CG and i have to say that i have learned more in the past year here in the forums...so yes, as a "visualization person", it is of vital importance to see if a particular image was done in VRAy, Lightscape,Brazil, etc etc.....what kind of materials were used, rendering times, you name it. so ...if i see a really great image posted and it doesnt say if it was done in vray, or viz or brazil....i would be dissapointed because i want to learn from the rest of you. please excuse my poor english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 ..I don't think it's bad because honestly I don't do any design, I'm handed a model as asked to make it look good. What ever tool will allow me to do that quickly and with good quality I'm going to use. But the point is: the engine doesn't make an image look good. The artist does. To me, this shows that people are becoming less interested on the job than they are in the engine. The engine does not do anything by itself. No matter how powerful the tool, even the most detailed model can look bad if the person behind the mouse knows nothing about modeling, light, color, composition, etc... As a former finances teacher of mine used to say, "even a monkey can learn how to operate a calculator...but can it tell if the results are correct?" They way I see it, people are putting all the study, artistic background and sensibility aside and paying more attention to the calculator... so ...if i see a really great image posted and it doesnt say if it was done in vray, or viz or brazil....i would be dissapointed because i want to learn from the rest of you. Hum... so, you assume making an image with Vray, let's say, is a guarantee of quality? Remember, there's much more in a good image than the engine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think it is quite worrying that someone can say they'd be disappointed if an image wasn't created using certain software. Find the software you like, learn how to use it and learn how to create the style of image you admired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I'm also thinking that by "design" Rick is referring to the design of the image...composition, lighting, materials, etc. not the design of the architecture. -Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 I'm also thinking that by "design" Rick is referring to the design of the image...composition, lighting, materials, etc. not the design of the architecture. Exactly, Chad. Every image we do must be a piece of design itself, me thinks. Pleasant to the eyes, informative and convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think in an ideal situation you could say that every image you create is a work of art, but let's get real here for a second. If you like me you do this job not only for the self fulfillment of being able to do something you enjoy but also to put food on the table. If my boss comes to me and says I need a rendering by the end of the day, I'm not so concerned about the artistic content of the image. My goal is to finish it before the deadline and some of these new rendering engines have a distinct advantage speed and quality wise over Max standard scan line rendering engine. If you’re using GI, how long would you have to work with standard lights and a scan line renderer to reproduce what GI does naturally? Add into that distributed rendering and you’re able to crank out images faster and at better quality than just using what comes with max. I have clients who couldn’t care less if the rendering is artistic in its composition; they just want to see what their building is going to look like, and they want it fast. I would love to compose every image I do, take my time and make sure everything is perfect but I can’t. Third party render engines allow you to get more done in less time with pretty good results if you know how to use them, but your right to some extent it does come down to knowing which buttons to press on the calculator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecastillor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think it is quite worrying that someone can say they'd be disappointed if an image wasn't created using certain software. Find the software you like, learn how to use it and learn how to create the style of image you admired. i guess you misundertood me. I just meant that its important to point out what software was used, so the rest of us can compare that to what we are using and decide which one is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecastillor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 But the point is: the engine doesn't make an image look good. The artist does. To me, this shows that people are becoming less interested on the job than they are in the engine. The engine does not do anything by itself. No matter how powerful the tool, even the most detailed model can look bad if the person behind the mouse knows nothing about modeling, light, color, composition, etc... As a former finances teacher of mine used to say, "even a monkey can learn how to operate a calculator...but can it tell if the results are correct?" They way I see it, people are putting all the study, artistic background and sensibility aside and paying more attention to the calculator... Hum... so, you assume making an image with Vray, let's say, is a guarantee of quality? Remember, there's much more in a good image than the engine... Of course not! I didnt say that....there is no guarantee of quality in just the kind of software used....there is a lot of other things..such as the artistic skills, level of details, etc. But it doesnt hurt to post on how a certain image was done, dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Alexander Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I have clients who couldn’t care less if the rendering is artistic in its composition; they just want to see what their building is going to look like, and they want it fast. I would love to compose every image I do, take my time and make sure everything is perfect but I can’t. Maxer, I think Rick is refering to what you don't see, a fish in water. Even in those low down and dirty renders you the artist are still making choices, color material qualities................. to communicate to your client. You are the greatest part of the whole the 'director', the rendering engine is just but one part a tool, albeit the "finishing" tool. It alone can't, although many think that's the only way to obtain good images. There is no one "best solution" overall, just for individual workflows. The Lightworks rendering engine in C4D has turned some top quality work stills and Video- because it's not perfect, stoachastic distribution of gi resembling a film grain, lots of uses for that. Vray does but it's not quite the same. Rendering engines are just tools in what should be a wide and varied tool box, the more options you have the faster it can be done. WDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Altieri Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 i'm really agree with you rick, i think most of the quality of the works depends on COMPOSITION (that means the way you show something to make looks better than reality...), obiously lightness (most of the softwares can do it well) and details, it's like to take a photo, so i have another important question... Why we're looking for the perfect "photorealistic" picture, when what we really need it to make good ilustration of future projects, sometimes i think that a good hand-drawing can do it better...so If we think that way, all the real photos of architecture will looks like "great renders".....we need to show not common photos, we need to show good photos... sorry for my poor english, i hope you all undertand what i say.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Altieri Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 by the way we can put on promotion images "LIVING ON A V-RAY HOUSE, YOU ALLWAYS BE HAPPY!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 But it doesnt hurt to post on how a certain image was done, dont you think? Absolutely! No harm at all. The problem is to think that THE ENGINE is so important that it must come AHEAD of the image itself. When people start a thread putting the engine as a title, I suppose they only want to know about some technical specific issue, not the image. But what we see more and more often is people worried about only these issues, not about the job itself. There are some forums that actually became engine-focused because of that, and I think it's the wrong direction. My goal is to finish it before the deadline and some of these new rendering engines have a distinct advantage speed and quality wise over Max standard scan line rendering engine. If you’re using GI, how long would you have to work with standard lights and a scan line renderer to reproduce what GI does naturally? Once again, Maxer, the thing is: you have to know what is that that GI does "naturally" (and it doesn't mean quickly) in order to know if it's right or wrong (or "know why you're pushing the calculator's button"). I see people simply using an engine because they've seen great images done by experienced people with it. By that, they assume the good result is because of the engine, not the guy behind the wheel. And they buy the engine, spend hundreds of dollars just to get disappointed because they can't get the same results (but, damn! I using the same engine! Why doesn't my image look like his/hers?). Last week a guy came to our DTC and showed me some of his renders. Amateur stuff, I must say. Then, he jumped an image done by a friend of mine using VRay and said "If I take classes here, will my images look like this?". Jeez! I told him that specific guy has been doing that for a few years, that he's a talented artist and all...then he replied "but isn't he using VRay?". Well, I tend to get a bit sensitive about this, maybe because I'm seeing my profession being treated like a button...But, again, that's how I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Could not agree more... which is why I posted this... http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=206971 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdarcy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Hi Guys, I am one of the guilty ones who typed the naughty letters V-ray in the image title, I didn't realise that i was breaking any image title protocol or that poeple here were so touchy about things like that. (slap my wrists). I personally am always curious as to what software people have used to create great images like you see on this forum. To answer the original question I think we the people who learn to use the software and model the designs create th images therefore we must be at least equally important. Cheers TD p.s. I'm off to rename some images haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 well you know... it is the classic example... Q: I want to put a SuperCharger in my car... the same one I see all those stock car drivers using... which one should I use? A: Step one: Learn to drive... then we can talk. BTW.. the driver drives the car... not the supercharger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdarcy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ha Ha, I like it, ...whats a supercharger ...where can i get my hands on one of those... can it plug into viz. TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecastillor Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Absolutely! No harm at all. The problem is to think that THE ENGINE is so important that it must come AHEAD of the image itself. When people start a thread putting the engine as a title, I suppose they only want to know about some technical specific issue, not the image. But what we see more and more often is people worried about only these issues, not about the job itself. There are some forums that actually became engine-focused because of that, and I think it's the wrong direction. Thats right! Engines will come ang go! Software will change! Its the artist that will remaine...... Its not the tool you use.....its the results you get, right? I finally got you Rick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 i don't think the software used has a place in the title of an image. the title should be that, a title, or a description. if you post vray in the title, then maybe i should spend timee critquing vrays abilities to render, and not the user. everyone knows what vray or their various render engine is capable of, that is why you chose it... it is the medium that you are using. when you look at an oil painting, you read the title. then in the description, it mentions the medium used. same for watercolor, mixed media, ect.. ect.. vray, mental ray, final render, ect... should be considered a branch in the digital medium. how exactly that works i don't know. typically when displaying electronic art, it might have the title, then under description or medium, it will mention that it is digitally produced. since all of the renderings here are digitally produced, it might be necessary to mention what tool or bruch or brush stroke equivelant you were using to acheive an effect, this should be done somewhere beside the title. by the way, i liek wda's view..... Rendering engines are just tools in what should be a wide and varied tool box, the more options you have the faster it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 There is no one "best solution" overall, just for individual workflows. The Lightworks rendering engine in C4D has turned some top quality work stills and Video- because it's not perfect, stoachastic distribution of gi resembling a film grain, lots of uses for that. WDA i didn't realize that cinema licensed the lightworks engine also. i use formz, and they license the lightworks engine. they only recently starting implementing the latest version that had any sort of GI, but i haven't really played with it, but given some of the cinema stuff that i have seen, maybe i will give it a try. i always liked lightworks scan line, though it lacked a few key features in my opinion, but their radiosity solutions, at least within formz, were hideous. so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vizwhiz Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 ok i just put up a post (without naming the software That i am using) asking for some critiques how to improve the over-alls Image, etc http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=63275 any comments will be greatly appreciated (i am Testing this "new" posting critique Technique) Thanks Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Alexander Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 i didn't realize that cinema licensed the lightworks engine also. i use formz, and they license the lightworks engine. they only recently starting implementing the latest version that had any sort of GI, but i haven't really played with it, but given some of the cinema stuff that i have seen, maybe i will give it a try. i always liked lightworks scan line, though it lacked a few key features in my opinion, but their radiosity solutions, at least within formz, were hideous. so The documentation on it, what rendering engine/s, in C4D is quite sparse. It only dawned on me while I was trying to turn off that &$*@^% auto light (headlight) that it was the same interface as TurboCad 10's implementation. And of course Frosty's review (resume') hehehe of C4D 9.0 mentioned it. I have used FormZ 4, and have access to use 5.0. I'll have to take a look, kind of peaked my curiosity. WDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now