Why do we render?
-
As stated above the term render cover more than just a photo real end product. Lets break it down; first of all you have to model the building/object. In some instances the raw uncoloured result is sufficient. This is normally true in a situation where the relevance will be THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAGE. The function of the model will relay spatial relationship , massing integration and general planning issues. This first stage can also branch of to perform a function of intent. Especially in the case of manufacturing. Being able to fully explain your design in three dimensions.
Now that the design has progressed and generally been accepted it needs to be sold. Now selling any product requires you to market it. Selling a design concept is very much the same, most marketing rules apply. It has to communicate to the target audience, in most cases the client and ultimately his/her client. So the image needs to appeal to the man on the street, the layman. It needs what I like to call GENUIS LOCI, spirit of place.
Rendering to me whether Photo real or hand drawn style is taking that initial conceptual design and adding spirit to it. As a professional you learn with time which render method to apply to your design to best ingrain into it that spirit of place. I always like to know whenever I start a project WHO (the very end user) it is intended for and will spend time in exploring that WHO.
My two cents, hope this added constructively to the discussion. -
A bit of a counter point.....
Prior to SketchUp I used 3DStudio Max, Infact I'd used 3D Studio since it came on 5 1.44Mb floppy's and was made by the Yost group! SketchUp was and still is a blast of fresh air.
I love SU BECAUSE it cant/doesn't render, No 14hour waits to see if the image is OK, No umpteen controls for each material to tweek, No crashes 99% through a 10hour render, No.... you get the picture.
The more you try to get a material 'right' the more it becomes 'just not quite right' and the more you tweek and the more you render....AND IT'S STILL ONLY FOR 1 IMAGE!
With SU I can plonk a good brick texture onto a wall and guess what?......It instantly becomes 'A brick wall'. I don't have to worry about the texture of the brick, the depth of the coursing, the colour of the mortar etc. etc. etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good rendered image and recently I've shelled out some of MY OWN money for Twilight just to get my ''eye back in' but trust me, it'll be a cold day in hell before I go back to the likes of 3D Studio.
-
As said above rendering is a great way to communicate/translate drawings & sketches to clients which is one of its great strengths.
The other, for me, is the wow factor. I've had clients who giggle when they see (semi)photo-real images of their projects. -
@redot said:
As said above rendering is a great way to communicate/translate drawings & sketches to clients which is one of its great strengths.
The other, for me, is the wow factor. I've had clients who giggle when they see (semi)photo-real images of their projects.I have worked with a lot of Office Furniture dealers. There basic application is to place premade 3D components of office furniture into an office setting to show a design to a client. We rendered their designs with a basic, OpenGL like, renderer. But they loved the idea of a push-button renderer which added floor reflection and ceiling lights to a pre-defined room to showcase their furniture layout. We originally used a special push-button version of Lightscape - until is was gobbled up by AutoCAD and shut down.
These "office furniture layout designers" did not learn about rendering, renderers or how to use them. But were quite excited about a simple, push button approach to getting "photorealistic" renderings from their models. This has led me to conclude that there are some designers who want a simple way to improve their client presentations.
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
Marketing - both for our firm and our clients, being able to post attractive images of a project = more money
Design - it's not uncommon for us to tweak or totally change materials upon looking at a rendering
Customer Satisfaction - it smooths the process along to show an accurate representation. The benefit of a hand drawn sketch or a study model is that the client will tend to fill in the details themselves and will have less to dislike if they don't see all the details up front. However that's also the biggest disadvantage as clients may misinterpret how something looks until it's built.
-brodie
-
I remember back when I started looking for more than a plan view or hand drawn sketch, I needed something more to sell my designs as I found my clients did not have vision and needed something with 'pop'.
I started with landscape designs, taking photos of the area/home and then using cut-out images I had compiled to create the look in Corel draw. I remember going to the nursery with a white cloth as a backdrop so that I could remove the white in photo edit, using black trash-bags to filter sun so not to get any glare.
I also remember when I started my construction business having the need for a site sign so that the neighbors could get an idea of what was happening in order to avoid them from causing delays in construction and it certainly helped when approaching the bank for financing. From there it became a standard even my competitors (not really as we are small time concept builders) asked me for renders. Now I am more illustration than construction. My wife is all 20-20 NKBA design, and although one might not think it but she does more interior renders than one can imagine, then again if you commission a designer for a 50K plus kitchen you would expect a render.I guess when I talk about render I mean photo-real, I consider anything else as just illustration, I know technically they are all 'renders' but you know what I mean.
-
You can look at a photo of great building and appreciate this and that, but its a wholly different experience to walk through it. Being inside a building elicits a whole bunch of emotions that you just don't get from a photo.
In a similar vein, I can look at a schematic representation of building / artefact and understand the dimensions etc but a render brings out a whole new set of emotions/thoughts that I just don't get from looking at a schematic representation that I can hopefully take back to the schematic in an iterative way.
Adam
-
Are we talking about "render" in terms of render engines like V-Ray and the likes (the context where you hear "render" in now)? Or does it include rendering with traditional tools - such and pen and paper?
-
I intended to discuss render as in 3rd party apps like Vray, KT, Podium, Lightup, etc. I'm trying to get to a point about why we render using SU plus X.
-
Ok - just wanted to clarify that. As "Why do we render" as in "Why do we illustrate" would be a totally different discussion.
For me it's an extra tool in the belt.
For early stage projects I prefer to keep it simple. A sketchy style communicates better to the viewer the stage the design is in. It prevents the client's getting caught up in details that hasn't been solved yet.
For more matured projects it's often a desire from the architect and client to see a better approximation of the final result - to get an impression of the materials and details. We often use this to try out various design solutions.
I still some times render a model for early stage projects - but not with realistic materials or lights. It's more that I some times want some softer shading than what SU offer natively. And it often gives a satisfying result quicker than shading my hand in PS. Additionally, V-Ray - which is my render engine of choice - allows you to render out various other useful passes that can be useful for a PS comp. -
Solo, I get the feeling that your question exposes some issues Architects have with Cad rendering. If you read Paul's post, he is making a good argument why not to use render software, essentially when it may impedes the design process. Surprising to me since Paul makes great renderings. I suspect that this is true for most Architects, regardless of the love we have for, or the value of Cad rendered images.
Speaking for myself, it is frustrating when you can not work in "what you see is what you get". Designing buildings is not the same as making an illustration of it, and when the illustration software slows visualization down, and design creativity is affected.
So I would change my reply to: When I render, it is simply to get the results that only Cad ray-tracing provides.
-
@solo said:
I intended to discuss render as in 3rd party apps like Vray, KT, Podium, Lightup, etc. I'm trying to get to a point about why we render using SU plus X.
I presume you are including non-photorealistic add-on renderers,
renderers which process lights, but not reflection, and of course we should include SketchUp itself. (Having worked in wireframe for many years, I thought OpenGL was a pretty good renderer in itself.)I liked what I thought the original question was "Why do we render?" - meaning why do we use SketchUp, and/or other tools (including pencils) to create renderings. But if you want to change it to: "Why do we purchase, or use free, add-ons for SketchUp" - that would be interesting too.
Non Photorealistic add-on example
Lights only example
SketchUp Rendering with OpenGL
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
In our daily work, rendering is not just for presentation for client but we also consider it a design tool
-
@unknownuser said:
Why do we render?
In short: To sell the design.
Rendering is a way of making the design look as good as it possibly can.
Rendering can also show the solution in a way that makes decisions easier to make. Maybe for people that isn't used to read cad files.
It's also a way to easily show different colors, materials, lighting, also making it easier to pick the "best" alternative.About style, photorealistic or not, I believe what sells the idea best is right. I also belive that a style that differentiates you from your competition is best. So when everyone is making photo real images why not make a hand drawn, watercolor image.
-
I agree with Pixero,
I render for a few reasons: 1. Once you add "lighting" to any space you get a much clearer idea of what the colors and materials would look like. 2. I also render to look at the color scheme and the overall "feel" of a space. 3. For Marketing reasons and to be used in proposals. 4. To analyze the location and the amount of lights in a space. 5. They are great to impress a client when they can't get the real 'sense of space' in a color wire-frame. 6. To decide material selection and product accurately in a space with other chosen products. Helps to price materials after the client has viewed them. 7. It's the only way you can decide lighting in a space before you purchase them.
Although most renderers tend to focus on the "static" image, ones that allows you to walk through a space live like "Lightscape" used to do is a great tool, "Light-Up seems to be the only alternative. Clients like this. Also it just make your space more real and believe-able.
-
I only render to show materials and oftentimes reflection of light. The "weight" of materials is important to me and a rendering helps convey that to a client.
Otherwise, sketchup provides a nice visualization tool for the geometries and how materials come together. Tracking a reveal through 10,000 S.F. is difficult enough, but to actually SEE and make visually informed decisions based on how it looks within a space is critical!
Advertisement