topic Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better? in Visualization

Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Thu, 11 May 2023 10:26:42 GMT

Rendering or Walk-through. To represent building spaces what is better? in your opinion...

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Tue, 01 May 2007 11:07:47 GMT

In my opinion a walk through is better because you get to understand the building more. The only thing is if the building is large it could take a while to do the walk through so several renders would be better in that situation. It depends on how much time u've got!

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Djordje — Wed, 02 May 2007 04:16:29 GMT

A series of still views merging into each other.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Andy Thomson — Wed, 02 May 2007 04:21:40 GMT

We have had some amazing success with flythroughs made in Studio lately. They are great to wow the client, and then we can guide them through the model in OpenGL 'shooter-style' to discuss the design. Doing the lattter without the former would freak them out I think.

The flythroughs take a painfully long time to render however. 48 hours or more is not uncommon for us.

Of course all of this depends on client, budget, time constraints and project phase - we show mere scribbles at first.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 12:21:44 GMT

Karlsson wrote:
Rendering or Walk-through. To represent building spaces what is better? in your opinion...

the real question is: is it possible to understand an Architecture without movement ?

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:14 GMT

I think it is possible to understand architecture without movement if you show the most relevant and important features of a building. The areas which sum up your design intentions.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:31:11 GMT

Neither

Movie, which is a sequence of small video clips, stitched together with music.
This way, you have movement, less rendering time and no shoot 'em up feeling.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

TomWaltz — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:56:46 GMT

I think it's totally possible to understand architecture without movement. I think too many people rely on the complete walk-through, including the more boring spaces. It's one thing to make an entrance into a key space, it's another to walk down 50 feet of corridor first.

A good animation can tell the story of the building and convey the experience of being in it with very little movement in just the key areas.

My tendency is to make small vignettes of the building, maybe 5 to 10 seconds in each space, with relatively slow movement of both the camera location and direction, just to show a little "sweep" of the space.

With a video editor (I use Final Cut Pro), you can splice these together with titles and graphics.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:24:15 GMT

Neither

Movie, which is a sequence of small video clips, stitched together with music.
This way, you have movement, less rendering time and no shoot 'em up feeling.
_________________
MIGUEL KRIPPAHL

I abslutely agree with miguel.Time is something we dont have most of us to spare and smal video clips with the key features of the deign stitched together is morw than good.

Re: Rendering or Walk-through.What is better?

Anonymous — Thu, 24 May 2007 04:45:10 GMT

The interactive walk-through is not an alternative to photo-realistic rendering, but an extra instrument at Architect's disposal.
VRML models can be used for collaboration, model checking, work process integration, electronic design review, sales, and marketing with architects, owners, engineers, detailers, fabricators, erectors, contractors, designers.

Giovanni Dragone
www.vitruvian-studio.com