David wrote:
My 2 cents:
I don't like tilted camera angles, ever, becuase it always tilts the vertical edges of the image.
Another time when ceilings are important are when your on your back in a hospital or the dentist office.
Try and sell a project with a view from a dentist's chair.
Further, your observation about vertical edges is so 50's. When the computer rendered image first arrived, a lot of guys asked "how do we keep the sides of the building vertical?" Like it was a two-point perspective and the building looked like it was falling over backwards.
And they were right, because a square tower all by itself in a classical composition needed this treatment.
In Archicad, even tho we don't have camera shift-and-tilt features like professional view cameras do, one can always keep the camera level and crop out the unwanted.
However, things changed from the '50's. We shoot images in context, now, because the digital world makes it easy to place context in an image. That context is distorted and our rendered model should be distorted to match.
Another idea is that a photo of an interior should be all tilty to match the user experience. There's judgement here because you don't place the camera where wacky, exagerrated geometry happens. I suggest that image makers tilt camera angles to show what the user will really see in navigating the room. This involves using a wider angle than usual and aiming at unusual targets.
But this is esoteric talk compared to gross errors I see in renderings that include:
-- camera position too far back (Gospel song idea: "He's got the whole world… in his viewfinder… Second verse: "He's got the whole world… in his Google Earth…)
-- wacky dark bits of irrelevant rooms showing
-- too much ceiling
-- backs of sofas act as barrier to visual engagement.
-- over/under exposure
Dwight Atkinson
