PDA

View Full Version : architecture training (house)



MUCUS
02-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Here's a new architectural picture, still in need to progress :)

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3250/houselow.jpg

And a link to the high resolution: (it may be slow to appear)

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2391/housevx.jpg

Comments and crits are welcome! :)

Markc
02-14-2010, 02:48 PM
Very nice design.
Is this an actual live job or just a personal project?

Iain
02-14-2010, 03:20 PM
Very nice Christophe!

Love the design and the materials.

I'd personally go for slightly softer shadows (using maybe an 8x8x8m Area Light for the sun) and raise the ambient light a little by cranking up the radiosity intensity.

MUCUS
02-14-2010, 03:52 PM
Mark, thank you! I take the design here http://www.architecte-paca.com/plan_maison_125.html so it's just for training :)

Thank you Ian, nice you like it! I've post this one on cgarchitect too, and someone tells me that the light is too bright and shadows too sharp...Indeed the original one is much much dark, kind of storm lightning so the bright here is done in comp.

I'll make a try with a darker light first and then a second render by cranking up the radiosity intensity, good tips! :)

(Oh and by the way, I looking for using Sasquatch with DOF...)

waly
02-17-2010, 01:58 PM
Mark, thank you! I take the design here http://www.architecte-paca.com/plan_maison_125.html so it's just for training :)

Thank you Ian, nice you like it! I've post this one on cgarchitect too, and someone tells me that the light is too bright and shadows too sharp...Indeed the original one is much much dark, kind of storm lightning so the bright here is done in comp.

I'll make a try with a darker light first and then a second render by cranking up the radiosity intensity, good tips! :)

(Oh and by the way, I looking for using Sasquatch with DOF...)



I agree on shadows, it s a little bit too sharp overall nice job i like the render

MUCUS
02-19-2010, 06:21 AM
So here's an other version, less photoshop corrections but higher radiosity intensity and DPinfinite light instead of the classic distant light. Dof is now fixed to respect LW dof (but I'm not too fond with the grainy dof of LW)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8743/housecorrectionlow.jpg

and here's a link to the high resolution:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7141/housecorrection.jpg

Still not perfect, but I'm done with this picture, thank you again for your adivices! :)

BeeVee
02-19-2010, 02:22 PM
If your DoF is grainy, and you are using Photorealistic DoF/MB, then you need to up the passes for the DoF.

B

Lor
02-19-2010, 02:29 PM
My comments for what they are worth.

First of all, nice job. Here are two minor criticisms.

1. Softening the shadows of the direct light (presumably sunlight) makes it now feel like it is either artificial light, or the sun is going behind a thin cloud. If you want it to feel like sunlight, those shadows need to sharpen up quite a bit (not too sharp). The first image actually feels more like sunlight to me due to the contrast between directly and indirectly illuminated areas and also due to the colour temp of the key light. It looks warmer in the first render, which is definitely more like sunlight.

2. The Depth of Field is inappropriate. The lens appears to be fairly wide, meaning the narrow depth of field required for this exposure would be extremely unlikely, unless the house is a miniature, which dramatically changes the perspective lines betwen the subject and the exposure medium. In order to achieve this level of DOF, you'd need to use a much longer lens. So it's killing the photorealism you're going for. What is your focal length?

lor

edit: OK, I just picked out one other aspect of the DOF that's bugging me. The midground is in focus and the foreground is out of focus. But the back ground is also in focus. The narrow DOF required to get house in focus and foreground trees out of focus would guarantee a dramatically out of focus background as far away as those clouds are. But that's kind of picking nits, since the DOF shouldn't actually be there at all. :)

colkai
02-20-2010, 04:09 AM
The DOF doesn't do it for me, it is somehow making the house look like a miniature.

Iain
02-20-2010, 04:32 AM
If you want it to feel like sunlight, those shadows need to sharpen up quite a bit (not too sharp). The first image actually feels more like sunlight to me due to the contrast between directly and indirectly illuminated areas and also due to the colour temp of the key light.


I agree with your DOF comments but I think the lighting looks spot on now taking the background into consideration.

Dropping the DOF (and perhaps the foreground branches) and comping in 2D grass would make this a very convincing render imo.

Lor
02-20-2010, 08:42 AM
OK, well presuming this is intended to be direct sunlight, let's guess how large the sun would have to be to create shadows that soften so close to the house. Just trace a line along both edges of the penumbra back up to where the sun is supposed to be and we can see that the sun would have to be ENORMOUS. Sunlight shadows just don't soften that quickly because the sun is, according to perspective, just a little marble in the sky.

Also the lack of contrast and warmth kills the whole feeling of sunlight.

Do you still intend it to be sunlight MUCUS?

The shadows are also too sharp to be skylight. So the only thing it could reasonably be IMO is occluded sunlight or a large, nearby, well illuminated UFO. ;)

That's just a technical discussion, not aesthetic.

lor

Iain
02-20-2010, 09:15 AM
That's just a technical discussion, not aesthetic.



Quite.
To me, if it looks right, it usually is right.

I've never traced a penumbra in me life!

Lor
02-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Agreed, Iain.:agree:

Doesn't look quite right to me. ;)

lor

Iain
02-20-2010, 10:23 AM
Doesn't look quite right to me. ;)



Fair enough :)
I bet Christophe is glad he sought our opinion!

Lor
02-20-2010, 11:02 AM
Well you're right. it's not very helpful to simply disagree.

I've attached the best image I have on hand of direct sunlight with storm clouds behind. Although you can't see the cast shadow quality, it should at least show what I'm harping on re: contrast.

lor

Lor
02-20-2010, 11:06 AM
Here's a couple more with shadows.
Hope that's helpful

lor

Skonk
02-20-2010, 11:08 AM
OK, well presuming this is intended to be direct sunlight, let's guess how large the sun would have to be to create shadows that soften so close to the house. Just trace a line along both edges of the penumbra back up to where the sun is supposed to be and we can see that the sun would have to be ENORMOUS. Sunlight shadows just don't soften that quickly because the sun is, according to perspective, just a little marble in the sky.

Also the lack of contrast and warmth kills the whole feeling of sunlight.

Do you still intend it to be sunlight MUCUS?

The shadows are also too sharp to be skylight. So the only thing it could reasonably be IMO is occluded sunlight or a large, nearby, well illuminated UFO. ;)

That's just a technical discussion, not aesthetic.

lor

While the sun is in relative terms, a very small lightsource and would indeed produce sharp, crisp shadows.. Clouds act as a diffuser raising the effective size of the lightsource.

With the ammount of cloud showing in the images background, the shadows would actually be very soft since both images show what looks like almost 100% cloud coverage.

Lor
02-20-2010, 11:16 AM
That's the main question, isn't it? Is it intended to be direct sunlight, or sun filtered through clouds? The first image suggests the former. The second is ambiguous.

I really love the compositional effect of a foreground object lit with bright, warm sunlight, with dark, brooding clouds in the background, which is what drew me into this discussion in the first place. I actually prefer the first render over the second, despite it's few issues. It's a more dramatic aesthetic.

So we really need to know the artist's intentions before we can critique properly.

IMO the reduction in intensity contrast and colour contrast coupled with the softening of shadows really took the dramatic edge off the image.

lor

Iain
02-20-2010, 11:56 AM
That's the main question, isn't it? Is it intended to be direct sunlight, or sun filtered through clouds? The first image suggests the former. The second is ambiguous.
.....................................So we really need to know the artist's intentions before we can critique properly.


The main question-do you really think so? I don't think it's at all relevant.
I don't see any need to critique an artist's exact or inexact replication of the physical properties of the sun and atmosphere.
Unless, of course, it's a mile off or is ruining an image.

I think the image looks great.

Lor
02-20-2010, 04:29 PM
I really do think so.

How can the artist's intention be irrelevant to the critique?

When an artist shows an image for the critique of his peers, we can hardly say "well done" if we don't know what his intention was in the first place. For example: if the artist intended night and instead it looks like a cloudy day, then the artist needs that feedback to find out where he went wrong, even if the image is a really excellent looking cloudy day. It is of little use to the artist to simply say "That looks great". We must say "Oh, you were going for night? Well it looks like a cloudy day to me." So the artist can revisit the image and explore what is missing. THAT is helpful criticism. We might add "...but a really well done cloudy day" so the artist will know how to light cloudy days in the future.

I certainly agree that there is not always a need to pay any attention to the physics of light and shadow. Artists should be free of those fetters. But we still need to know that information before we can offer a valid critique.

We need that information as a baseline with which to compare our opinions of the work. If the artist was going for hyper-real, gloomy, drab, we need to know that. Otherwise our critique has little validity.


I don't see any need to critique an artist's exact or inexact replication of the physical properties of the sun and atmosphere.

Agreed, unless the goal is photorealism, which we don't currently know. But not the exact physical properties, its merely the "look" and "feel" of those properties, yes?

lor

cresshead
02-20-2010, 06:35 PM
my only crit is that the scale looks "off" to my eyes...the tree looks too small...the house looks too small compared to the car and the sunloungers and the grass blades look too large...

the sky bg looks to be from a heavy overcast day yet the lighting is for a sunny day...maybe swap out the bg image on that one?

some balancing of the scales of the objects should set that right also the dof doesn't help the scale as it tends to make it look like a miniature model also...

okay i'm being nit picky...all the other aspects look good like the materials and lighting

ingo
02-21-2010, 04:16 AM
I agree with you, the scale seems a bit odd, maybe its because the cam is to low. Instead of talking bull sh it i prefered to do bull s h i t and changed the rendering in an imageeditor, i have overdone it a bit but you get the idea. My main target was to get the right mood, despite the shadows are too smooth...

Lewis
02-22-2010, 04:22 AM
Looks very nice and i especially like material of building.

As for the rest I'd fix Mercedes's UV for tire side wall, it's BFGODRICH but flipped 180 degrees :D :D.

MUCUS
02-23-2010, 06:50 PM
Beevee, I was using photo-real blur yes, but I guessed that 50 anti aliasing pass should be ok??

Lor, a BIG thank to you, you are absolutely right about DOF, there is no way to have such a DOF unless taking a picture from a miniature. I had 17 m in focal distance and a lens-F-stop setup to 0.8, and was looking for DOF without thinking about realistic conditions. I doesn't really managed LW dof so your comment make me realized that I had to be really careful with it. :)

Ian, your comments are often very encouraging and make me want to go further, thank you!

Concerning shadows, I wanted a stormy sky with bright light, as if the rays was going through a hole in the clouds, so I think that the shadows had to be sharp (not too much, but still softer than the first pic). This is an aesthetic intention, but I'm still in need to learn how to make my pictures more realistic, so I think that everything that have been told here is true, anyway anything that have been told here is really useful for me.

By the way, here's AGAIN a new version with no dof, the car (as it was said to me on cgarchitect) is a bit smaller, and I hope it can fix the scale issues. (Lewis! I didn't even take care of the UVs issue!)

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9040/housecorrection2.jpg

Thank you again for all the comments, they all are really useful :)

ingo
02-24-2010, 02:42 AM
Looks a lot better now without the dof, but still some issues with the scaling. I would make the sunlight a bit brighter and put the camera at eyelevel (same for the cameratarget), and maybe the branches at bit smaller. Other than that it looks fine.

pixym
03-03-2010, 05:39 PM
Nothing against DOF for me. The only crit would be to use shift camera…