Yellow: Thanks for the interesting links. I’m all for a more cinematic language in ArchViz. But the problem - and the pros, not me, will confirm this - is that clients in this, as in other, businesses are inherently conservative. Taking them by the hand and persuading them to produce anything else but the old tired cliches is hard work.
Here’s what some friends of mine (in my opinion the best archviz firm around) have tried. Bear in mind this was a promotional, non-commissioned piece:
Your welcome. Pure looks very professional, well executed and talented.
Regarding clients, I think in many cases it will just be down to price, then it’s how efficient, resourceful and streamlined the archiviz company are in providing the best for the money, the conservative may be the reluctance to give an ‘artist’ an open cheque book and the ‘Oh well if that’s the best we can get for the money we’ll have to go with that’. with reference to the large amount of sub par archiviz there is about.
Just to flip that show me a building design that couldn’t be built? In your opinion.
While watching all the “animations” on this site, I had an insight and I have to confess that I am highly biased in my opinion concerning the boringness of arch-vis in general.
The insight came from seeing a lamp used several times in different “animations”. You know, that lamp with a large chrome oval orb perched at the end of a long arched chrome pole? At my job, I am a software engineer and I program a fast realistic renderers that is used for arch-vis, more specifically for interior remodelings, refurnishings, and decorations. And in our large catalog of furniture, we also have this lamp and I like to use this lamp in scenes for testing the renderer in part because of its simple but interesting design.
Anyway. seeing this lamp in the animation made me realized that I get to see interior arch-vis rendering way too much in my day job and this certainly bias my appreciation of arch-vis renderings toward the boring end of the appreciation spectrum. Now you know where I am. Sorry about this.
Just to flip that show me a building design that couldn’t be built? In your opinion.
From your own post: “Fifth Element, Blade Runner, Star Wars…” (I’ll give you Batman :yes:)
While some of those structures could be build using today’s standards (the Jedi school from Episode 3, for example), getting anybody to sign off on them and clear them for construction would almost certainly not happen. For that reason, if I’m to look at 3D generated architecture, I would prefer to see something that I could reasonably expect to see built (providing the lot owner/city/others) had the funds to finance those projects.
To everybody his own, but I’m just saying you shouldn’t knock the guy to the ground just 'cause you’re not into that kind of style. It might be garbage to you, but you know what they say “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”!
Hey!, just to clarify, I’ve made it clear that it’s well executed, skilled work and the artists are highly talented. No where have I called it garbage! No where have I called or implied it’s trash. Don’t put words in my mouth or misquote me, RIGHT! :mad:
With regard to Fifth Element etc , I was implying the presentation and depiction of it not the construction techniques.
I’ve said a lot of it is cliched presentation, but not trash rendering and no where have I suggested you or anyone else shouldn’t spend time looking at them. :mad:
Your comment about what could get signed off / financed /build standards IS garbage though as it’s subjective and without foundation. (pun not intended).
I’m not disputing the images are well executed, but they are not mold breaking as originally suggested by redbyte.
