PDA

View Full Version : Alex Roman



Iain
08-01-2009, 06:06 AM
I'm sure most of you are aware of this guy but these teasers for his short film are just stunning. Even if you don't go in for realism or appreciate architecture, his eye for detail and beauty are amazing.

http://www.thirdseventh.com/index.php?/thirdseven/fourth-dimension/

DiedonD
08-01-2009, 06:24 AM
Probably the camera movement at 1.34 and 1.44 that made it seem more like CG to me at thos times.

Its then that the camera moved unreally clean and CG precise fast for it to look too real.

But when it went slow throughout the video, it seemed quit photoreal!

ingo
08-02-2009, 02:16 AM
Looks anazing, but i have to agree with you, the camera movement kills it. And that every project has the same dark mood is a bit boring, but well, if he uses Vray ;)

doimus
08-02-2009, 05:46 AM
Nevermind the fact that there's only two textures (wood and concrete) - he should've added at least some "dirt" maps, or just visit the actual library with the camera.

Regarding the camera movement, I actually don't mint "wild" movements as that is quite expected nowadays in archviz (and in Hollywood as well). What irritates me the most is shaking hand-camera effect... which doesn't look good at all.

cresshead
08-02-2009, 08:36 AM
i prefer the kindle...

that environment looked awful, uninviting,dirty, hard, cold...not a place you'd want to spend any length of time in...looks like some nightmarish place from george orwell's 1984.

really..shutter concrete finish for the internal of a library?
horrible.

Iain
08-02-2009, 09:10 AM
My god you fellas are hard to please!

As an exercise in realism and cinematography I found it to be way beyond most of what you see nowadays.

As for the comments on the architecture, I don't agree at all. Nightmarish? I've posted this on the wrong forums! :D

cresshead
08-02-2009, 09:18 AM
My god you fellas are hard to please!

As an exercise in realism and cinematography I found it to be way beyond most of what you see nowadays.

As for the comments on the architecture, I don't agree at all. Nightmarish? I've posted this on the wrong forums! :D

the render quality is nice, the dof and lighting good.

the 'finish' for the inside of a library to mimic a nuclear bunker's bomb proof walls is not inviting, friendly, warm, cosy.

to give the interior of a building the same finish as a motorway flyover is not 'elegant' it's cheap, rough, nasty and plain cold.
lastly the camera work gave you no proper idea of what it's like to walk around the space as a usr of the library big time drop the ball...

..all odd camera shots, weird closups..not good...would have been okay if they also put in some shots that gave you an idea of scale and how a user would feel inside the place..but they didn't bother...

asfor realism..some shot..i didn't know if i were looking at a macro shot or a tiny model..or a huge space..

it may have looked better with some books on the shelving...sorta amazing that the actual use of the libray was not shown...

Iain
08-02-2009, 09:30 AM
lastly the camera work gave you no proper idea of what it's like to walk around the space as a usr of the library big time drop the ball...

..all odd camera shots, weird closups..not good...would have been okay if they also put in some shots that gave you an idea of scale and how a user would feel inside the place..but they didn't bother...


You've completely missed the point. This isn't corporate arch viz to help people see how they can use a space and how cosy they might feel in it. It's a recreation of a beautiful building.
It's just art. (Well, at least I thought so-as I said, wrong forums!)

cresshead
08-02-2009, 09:42 AM
oh dear that for letter word tha's missing a letter....:D

ingo
08-02-2009, 10:08 AM
You've completely missed the point. This isn't corporate arch viz to help people see how they can use a space and how cosy they might feel in it. It's a recreation of a beautiful building.
It's just art. (Well, at least I thought so-as I said, wrong forums!)

Okay the architecture is one thing, but the pictures .... Harry Potterish archviz. The renderings are technically perfect, but an eye for beauty, i hardly can see that, he just copied existing photos.

Especially odd when you knew that he does it for fun, no contract work with tight deadlines like we archviz guys are used too. So enough time to play around with camera standpoints and lighting to do some nicer shots that give a better impression of the architecture.

FWIW, here's more about this odd guy (be aware, its on an autodesk server !!! ;) ) :

http://area.autodesk.com/inhouse/bts/publications_by_alex_roman

Iain
08-02-2009, 10:24 AM
but the pictures .... Harry Potterish archviz. The renderings are technically perfect, but an eye for beauty, i hardly can see that, he just copied existing photos.

Yeah you're right. He's rubbish and those movie clips are crap! (Did you even look at all three?)

See you guys.

Andyjaggy
08-02-2009, 03:58 PM
Yeah you're right. He's rubbish and those movie clips are crap! (Did you even look at all three?)

See you guys.

Iain. Sounds like you need to take my attitude.

Unless the person commenting has something equally as good or better as what is being criticized I completely dismiss their opinion.

ingo
08-02-2009, 04:02 PM
Chill down man, you like but we don't, thats life.

I appreciate that some people got sick of the boring walkthrough-thingys that dominate archviz movies, but now I have seen that kind of dark-mooded short-movies over and over again the last few years and i am a bit tired of seeing the same thing again with no new ideas.

monovich
08-02-2009, 04:23 PM
I think the renders and the overall pieces are fantastic. It looks like the library is missing the books, and of course people, which will contribute to the feeling of warmth. The building is probably supposed to be a study in contrasts, but without the added warmth of the missing elements maybe it reads cold to some people, but not to me. This is my kind of stuff!

Sekhar
08-02-2009, 04:47 PM
Saw the first one. And yeah, it looks great and very photoreal - except for the papers at the end. But I have to agree, it's quite boring as a short (in fact, I quit after a few seconds, but went back after reading the exchange in this thread).

jasonwestmas
08-02-2009, 05:02 PM
I thought the point of the film was surfacing, lighting and the design of the geometry. They were all good. How it appeals to me as a person. . .well no place can appeal to me unless I have dwelt there for some time. It's more about the context at that point which is not the point of this film.

Larry_g1s
08-02-2009, 05:49 PM
...you fellas are hard to please!

As an exercise in realism and cinematography I found it to be way beyond most of what you see nowadays.

As for the comments on the architecture, I don't agree at all. Nightmarish? I've posted this on the wrong forums! :DI'm with you Iain, I thought it was fantastic! The camera work was fine, maybe a bit too jitter right before it refocuses at around 1:44, but seriously it was so small. Very nicely done. The render quality is great, I enjoyed the dof, and lighting was solid. Thanks for sharing.

DiedonD
08-03-2009, 01:14 AM
I never did find arts in buildings!

So whats the artistic value in it? What did the artist want us to catch by our analysis? His art should make us feel right? Thats the aim of that. So then what is it?

Mind you, it shouldnt be work related beutifulness of it all. Thats a secondary thing. If we are to admire his work, then we are trying to evaluate his crafstmanship, not art. His work aside, what is it that he wanted us to know about his artistic short with our analysis, so as that should make us feel and we should then admire and discuss that?

Say, he chose a more darkened mode, and the library is empty, though papers, of assuming book pages, go flying from above!

Hmmmm... whats the message.

Hail to this library but lets destroy the books?!

But there is hope, cause a great bluish shining light beyond, as well as the sun rays do touch the shallow (non biologic life whatsoever) insides of this building. So perhaps in the next serial, them books would come back to their places in a slow motions backward mode.

Them above would be art.

Not just the shiny gloomy work of it all.

ingo
08-03-2009, 01:54 AM
I'm with you Iain, I thought it was fantastic! The camera work was fine, maybe a bit too jitter right before it refocuses at around 1:44, but seriously it was so small. Very nicely done. The render quality is great, I enjoyed the dof, and lighting was solid. Thanks for sharing.

People who liked that also like this :

http://noemotion.net/

Scroll down a few years to "10.08.06 - Peter Sanitra Demoreel 2006" for example.

JCG
08-03-2009, 02:07 AM
I never did find arts in buildings!Wow, never?!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/148796344_0fc80299bf.jpg
http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/india/images/vishnu-temple-srirangam-500.jpg

Maybe it's because I don't think that art needs to deliver a message in order to be art. It just needs to cause an impact great enough to make you want (or need) to see more.

Some buildings really do that for me.

DiedonD
08-03-2009, 03:25 AM
Wow, never?!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/148796344_0fc80299bf.jpg
http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/india/images/vishnu-temple-srirangam-500.jpg

Maybe it's because I don't think that art needs to deliver a message in order to be art. It just needs to cause an impact great enough to make you want (or need) to see more.

Some buildings really do that for me.

Your pictures deserve to be reposted...

But still, its in the eye of the beholder. The first white one is enchanting, but I automatically imagined an Ice Magic Queen in it, walking in her white queen dress, towards her magic driveaway.

See its about people with me. Buildings and everything else inorganic falld in the 'just a background' cathegory with me.

But yeah, art has to provoke something. Feelings, thoughts, or in more extreme cases even a behavior!

biliousfrog
08-03-2009, 05:42 AM
The image mapped surfaces weren't very well done, far too much repetition and very little 'texture', the camera wobbles were too clunky and CG ( you wouldn't get that with a tripod, crane, dolly etc) and the subject matter was quite dull

but

....the cinematography, direction and overall feel of the videos is amazing. I did wonder why he didn't just film the interior of the building if he liked it so much but that's not the point, he has made a beautiful video out of something that is solid and motionless and made a CG representation that is often extremely realistic.

What a lot of people seem to be missing is that CG is most often viewed and commissioned by non-CG artists, where accurate lighting, surfacing and modeling is less important than whether it actually looks good. A property developer is more likely to like a great looking illustration/animation that catches the eye than a pin-point accurate representation that is bland and lifeless. Whether or not Alex's videos are for a commercial project, the fact is that they are far beyond most arch-viz animations in quality and style.

I've reached saturation point with dull fly-throughs that have the camera strapped to a virtual gnat, doors that magically swing open when you get close, wonky, vertigo inducing camera angles and monotonous voice-overs droning on about how revolutionary the under floor heating is. We're looking at a 2009 VW/Audi/BMW commercial compared to a 1970's Ford/Rover/Skoda commercial...sexy rather than functional.

Intuition
08-03-2009, 08:39 AM
Yeah you're right. He's rubbish and those movie clips are crap! (Did you even look at all three?)

See you guys.

Don't worry Iain. Its top notch. Alex Roman is world renowned for photoreal work in Vray. This work is no exception. :thumbsup:

aaronv2
08-03-2009, 08:59 AM
lol I just had to post this. Does he speak English? I say this because at the start of the move it says...

"a The third & seventh production" I gagged at the grammatical error in a professional teaser / reel.

Apart from that I thought they were amazing. The level of detail was amazing, some of those surfaces just look amazing to me. The color grading was awesome. It reminds me of brutalist architecture that was going around in the 70's that's been incorporated into a lot of modern architecture these days. Ive particularly seen that concrete finish in many modern buildings.

I wish the camera moves were kept to pans and dolly movements that one spiraling shot made it look CG. But apart from that one nit pick it was absolutely amazing work. Very cinematographic to me.

Hopper
08-03-2009, 09:10 AM
lol I just had to post this. Does he speak English? I say this because at the start of the move it says...

"a The third & seventh production" I gagged at the grammatical error in a professional teaser / reel.
dumb-a**. That is grammatically correct. The name of the production IS "The Third & Seventh", so saying "A Third & Seventh production" would be incorrect. Pay attention.

archijam
08-03-2009, 09:35 AM
Iaian: +1

Fantastic, wrong forum. ;)

Kray forum perhaps?

PS. Have you seen the documentary (http://www.myarchitectfilm.com/) 'by' Kahn's son?

Iain
08-03-2009, 10:35 AM
Unless the person commenting has something equally as good or better as what is being criticized I completely dismiss their opinion.

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just think some of those posted here sounded more like sour grapes than criticism.
(I'd like to have seen the replies had it been rendered in LW!)

This guy is renowned for his brand of stylized realism and yet here, of all places, people make dismissive comments.
Each to their own I suppose, apologies for the over-reaction.


I haven't seen My Architect, Archijam-thanks for the link :thumbsup:

Cageman
08-03-2009, 10:50 AM
Really nice stuff in those vids!

Thanks for posting, Iain.

:)

Exception
08-03-2009, 08:35 PM
Questioning Louis Kahn's architecture I guess is free to all, except that you'd have the entire architectural academic community against you. Kahn was one of the great architects of the 20th century. One would do well to study up on him before offhandedly dismissing his architecture. That man gave his life for his work, no lesser than Michaelangelo, Paladio or Alberti. Great architecture is never easy to understand, nor is great art ever unquestioned. Just know what you're talking about, I would say.

I think the rendition of Alex Roman of the Exeter Library is truly stunning, and wanting very little. It's not only technically very proficient, it's sensitive to the architecture and its intentions, with amazing eye for detail. I agree on the camera movement, but I don't have much else to add. The other clips he made are equally stunning. I have yet to see that level of quality from anyone else but perhaps one or two people on these forums.

As for why he didn't just filmed the building... ever tried filming a large national monument / public building without disturbances, having full control over the light and atmospheric conditions? With rail-mounted cameras and full light rigs? I think it's not only faster but also cheaper doing it in CG. Not to mention you get to retune the building to the architect's intentions.

One could perhaps say that Kahn would have liked it to be weathered a bit more, and by that I mean the wood mostly. Kahn enjoyed the wearing down of surfaces over time, giving them life and proof of use.

Thanks for sharing, Iain, I really appreciate it.

ingo
08-04-2009, 02:19 AM
Well i guess part of the late success of the architecture of Kahn and others that work with concrete that way is the cg-business. Those buildings are mostly easy to model and texture, and since they are impressive itself its easy to make a good rendering of them.

Regarding the short movie, as said before i dont like it because of its dark mood (and the lazy texturing), since that doesn't really reflect and respect the architecture. If you ever have a chance to visit the library you will be surprised to see that despite the rough and massive concrete all around it has a warm atmosphere.

Although i can see that its just "in" to do that kind of dark and overly moody renderings that come from Noemotion or from Alex Roman, it doesn't work for every project, but nevertheless its interesting to see what happens when VFX guys meet archviz.

zardoz
08-04-2009, 02:28 AM
Unless the person commenting has something equally as good or better as what is being criticized I completely dismiss their opinion.

Andy do you like sports? like football or basketball? I love sports and when my team plays bad I criticize them a lot! Do I play better than them? nope.

When I watch some movie with crappy FX I criticize it and say it's crap. Can I do better? Probably not...
I don't think we have to be better than someone to criticize their work.

About the topic...Iain really thanks for sharing this. I've seen Alex Romans work (stills) for some years now but never seen the videos. And they are absolutely great.

archijam
08-04-2009, 03:46 AM
Well i guess part of the late success of the architecture of Kahn and others that work with concrete that way is the cg-business.

Quoted for :question: ..

Exception
08-04-2009, 04:01 AM
Quoted for :question: ..

Right... since when is Kahn having 'late success'?

He's up there with le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, Alvar Aalto and Frank Lloyd Wright. He was quite succesful quite early on in his practice already. I wouldn't call that late success in any respect :)

The National Assembly Building of Bangladesh (http://k43.pbase.com/o6/77/94377/1/100269325.A83e3Ql1.d5IMG12_2438.jpg)... my goodness. What an achievement. Handbuilt brick by brick using rickety bamboo scaffolding and only buckets and hand tools.

Tobian
08-04-2009, 10:18 AM
Wow I aspire that my renders look as badly textured rendered and lit as that :p

Other than the papers at the end, the other 'tell' for me was the lights which flicker on, all flicker in synch, instead of slightly randomly, as they would in nature.

Otherwise an outstanding visual treat!

In the right hands any material can have a great beauty, including concrete, and for those who don't 'get' architecture, well I'm sad for you that you don't have the sense of the profound beauty of the built environment and human achievement in coalescing many disciplines of art in one space to bring you an uplifting experience. Everyone's different I guess?! :D

Iain
08-05-2009, 12:13 PM
Right... since when is Kahn having 'late success'?


Probably just in the 'celebrity' sense. He's still not a household name like FLW etc but lay people are becoming more aware of him.

ingo
08-06-2009, 02:07 AM
Right... since when is Kahn having 'late success'?

He's up there with le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, Alvar Aalto and Frank Lloyd Wright. He was quite succesful quite early on in his practice already. I wouldn't call that late success in any respect :)....

Well as Iain already said all the architects you mentioned are well known here, but if you go to the university not many archstudents recognize Kahn and his work, even Oscar Niemeyer has not the popularity he deserves, at least here in Germany.

But the great film from his son made him "visible" a bit more since it was shown on tv, although around midnight.