topic Re: Critiques welcomed in Visualization

Critiques welcomed

rengarch — Thu, 11 May 2023 11:43:37 GMT

Here was a rendering that I did quickly. I rendered the model in color and then in the sketch engine. I then overlayed them in Photoshop. It was a quick way to conceal all the details that were not finished or worked out in the model. The client would have ben fixated on the details if I had only shown him the color rendering.

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:26:27 GMT

being critical: your viewpoint probably needs altering to better sell the building in little snippets rather than one overview that has the landscape floating at 10000ft . . .

i've been doing the same - below out of the 3D openGL window. this gives very flat, uninspiring results but is extremely quick without over-doing the realism . . .

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:28:58 GMT

. . . and the far superior, high-end rendering overlaid with the sketch. it gives a much greater sense of depth and therefore is slightly more evocative. much longer time to produce due to the render, but far more rewarding. again without over-doing the realism - it maintains its 'sketch' feel.

~/archiben

Re: Critiques welcomed

Dwight — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:24:05 GMT

rengarch wrote:
Here was a rendering that I did quickly. I rendered the model in color and then in the sketch engine. I then overlayed them in Photoshop. It was a quick way to conceal all the details that were not finished or worked out in the model. The client would have ben fixated on the details if I had only shown him the color rendering.

My critique is that you should have marquee stretched the edges of your mesh to get them beyond the view extent. A fast and easy way to focus the eye. Otherwise very appealing as an exposition of the design.

The overlay of linework and texture seems to be a great solution to under-developed models. As if anyone has the time to properly develop a model.

Re: Critiques welcomed

Thomas Holm — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:52:14 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
. . . and the far superior, high-end rendering overlaid with the sketch. it gives a much greater sense of depth and therefore is slightly more evocative. much longer time to produce due to the render, but far more rewarding. again without over-doing the realism - it maintains its 'sketch' feel.

I like both the house and the rendering, Ben! May I ask that you detail the procedure of the bf2 rendering? How was the high-end rendering done? And what sketch settings did you use? (and did you change the hight-width proportions of the house between the renderings?)

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:04:52 GMT

rengarch wrote:
Here was a rendering that I did quickly. I rendered the model in color and then in the sketch engine.

how do you do this? i mena if i understood correctly you render first and then you re-render with another way?

Re: Critiques welcomed

rengarch — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:59:52 GMT

Yes, the identical vantage points and sun settings for both renderings. In Photoshop the colored (photorealistic) rendering is the bottom layer, next is the the sketch rendering with the transparency toned down and the top layer is white colored layer (adjust the transparency).

Re: Critiques welcomed

rengarch — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:02:43 GMT

Thanks Dwight for your critique. You are right, the ground plane is distracting. "If it aint one thing it's another" (Rosanne Rosana Dana).

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:32:25 GMT

Thomas wrote:
I like both the house and the rendering, Ben!

thanks. apart from the ugly shadow across the bottom?!

May I ask that you detail the procedure of the bf2 rendering? How was the high-end rendering done?

lightworks - deliberately over-saturated so that the sketch render could be 'overlaid' as a blending option in photoshop. took about 18 minutes.

And what sketch settings did you use?

pretty basic: 'koh_i_noor' with a few minor tweaks. the 'overlay' blending option in photoshop is what really does all the work in giving the final image it's feeling. the sketch render (no vectorial hatching) took about 10 seconds. i'm annoyed that the sliding door opening arrows show in the render - they should be classed as a part of the vectorial hatching rather than being '3D elements'.

(and did you change the hight-width proportions of the house between the renderings?)

no - both the lightworks and sketch renders were the same size from the same camera. if you're noticing the difference between the two images it's due to design change . . . and it still is . . .

~/archiben

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:15:05 GMT

the 'overlay' blending option in photoshop is what really does all the work in giving the final image it's feeling. the sketch render (no vectorial hatching) took about 10 seconds.

You can also set your Sketch layer to 'Multiply' in Photoshop, it just takes out all the white in the image.

And remember to switch off all lights when you do the sketch render.

There is abit of discussion about it here:
archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=10074&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=another&&start=0

And my attempts at the technique here:
archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=67826&highlight=sketchy#67826

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:34:41 GMT

i'm annoyed that the sliding door opening arrows show in the render - they should be classed as a part of the vectorial hatching rather than being '3D elements'.

You can simply switch the arrows off in '3D Representation' of door settings (in case you don't know that already )

Nice result. Can you post raw LW render?

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:11:01 GMT

About the topic subject.
Just some general thoughts:
- I never was a fan of isometric presentation if it is not an urban palning. No matter how fine your model is it will always look like a doll house on the table. I would suggest to look for some more interesting view angle, maybe 'flying bird' perspective if you need to show the whole building. You can also use 'fog' or 'depth cue' in LW Environment setting to cover up site imperfections and add some more depth in your scene. Here's the sample:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=8575&highlight=grass

I bet that the investor is looking for some good impresion more than the geometrical cohesion in those early stage presentations.

Re: Critiques welcomed

Thomas Holm — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:02:48 GMT

Thanks, Ben and Tom, I enjoy learning new things all the time!

Re: Critiques welcomed

rengarch — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:11:53 GMT

I would suggest to look for some more interesting view angle, maybe 'flying bird' perspective if you need to show the whole building. You can also use 'fog' or 'depth cue' in LW Environment setting to cover up site

Did you mean, Bird's Eye View? I must be the only one that likes axonmetrics. I am constantly getting feedback from the model (axonometics) during the design process. Maybe the layman have a difficult time understanding the building in axonometric view. Back in the hand draughting days, I would have to draught the axons in order to understand the true scale of the massing.
I needed to convey to the owner the design of the roof in relationship to the house and ground view perspectives obviously do not have the vantage points for that. I have never implemented the fog feature, maybe now is a good time to do so.

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:55:51 GMT

Did you mean, Bird's Eye View?

Yes, that's a proper term.

I agree axonometric can be helpful in undesrtanding the scale and proportions during the design, as well as the relation between site and architecture, but it is just not natural for human eye. The design product which is a building itself will be experience from the standing person perspective most of the time, so it should look right (and be presented) from this point of view more than any other. Isometric might be even misleading in this case, but as I said it just my thoughts more than some written rule.
About the fog/depth cue again - when the suroundings are not modeled yet I prefer to use this than to show levitating mockup.

Cheers

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:00:42 GMT

tigr wrote:
You can simply switch the arrows off in '3D Representation' of door settings (in case you don't know that already )

i did. but then how do i get the arrows on the elevations and sections without manually turning it back on?!

i think that 3D documentation elements - such as door arrows and 3D information text - need bundling under a new 'non-visualisation' category of elements . . .

~/archiben

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:06:24 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
tigr wrote:
You can simply switch the arrows off in '3D Representation' of door settings (in case you don't know that already )
i did. but then how do i get the arrows on the elevations and sections without manually turning it back on?!

i think that 3D documentation elements - such as door arrows and 3D information text - need bundling under a new 'non-visualisation' category of elements . . .

~/archiben

You may recall, ~/ben, that this is available in Door & Window Builder, available from CadImage.....(I should be on a commission).

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:14:45 GMT

s2art wrote:
You may recall, ~/ben, that this is available in Door & Window Builder, available from CadImage.....(I should be on a commission).

DWB only available from yesterday on a mactel mate . . . but thanks for the heads-up . . .

~/ben

Re: Critiques welcomed

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:15:23 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
s2art wrote:
Door & Window Builder, available from CadImage.

hello
excuse me but i didnt quite understand whats this DWB. is it sth that lets you make your own doors and windows? because im looking for a program like this.
thanks

Re: Critiques welcomed

__archiben — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:25:13 GMT

WENDY_NEVERLAND wrote:
excuse me but i didnt quite understand whats this DWB. is it sth that lets you make your own doors and windows? because im looking for a program like this.

it's a library part/add-on for archicad produced by the guys at cadimage here in new zealand . . . this (and the rest of their products) can be found and bought here:

http://www.cadimagetools.com/home.php?page=products&PHPSESSID=8183577571acae0d41ec5af98cd7458f

HTH
~/archiben