Opinion please.. kinda OT and OT

Page 1 of 3  
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the time to dick around with frivolous things after that. But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff. One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.
Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the two. One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and subsequently a lot more time. EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle, textures etc. One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Rendertest.jpg
Thanks in advance.
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

right hand pic
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I asked for, and received, a lot of constructive opinion.
I will do the 10 second raytracings to eliminate all those colours they do not want. Then, when the client(s) and I narrow it down to a couple, do a better rendering. The 3 minute time span will be taken up by reviewing the wonderfulness of the product, and the excellent choice the customer just made extolling the virtues of having superb taste. *hurl in bag/ toss*
Seriously, that was very helpful.
Thanks.
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That sounds like the best of both worlds ... and while the (gasp) 3 minute rendering is running, you can go get a cup of wonderfully flavourful coffee.
Funny how things work out.
Good luck,
Rick
BTW, how's your screen door working out?

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 22, 6:38 pm, "Rick M"

Thank you. I am trying to meld the presentation and the CAD sides of the same photographs. So far it has worked just fine, but only in concept. I'm after some finesse. Peruse. if you will, what these guys are up to: http://www.etemplatesystem.com / and http://fabchoice.com/phototop.html
And, for a mere $ 54,000.00 you get one of these: http://www.etemplatesystem.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1113 "using ShopBot Technology!!"

No fun at all. I was a bit over-confident on the third day after the op. I supervised two of my guys installing a quartz top. I didn't touch any of the bits (Including a 400 pound island top), but being on my feet caused a lot discomfort that after 2 weeks is finally subsiding. There are some bugs flying in and out of somebody's room somewhere. The good news is that they won't have to reinstall any of it. Onward and upward. Thanks for asking,
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Both have points in their favor, but on balance, the one on the right.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The pic on the left is snappier but has a loss of detail that only you can determine if necessary. The detail is captured in the right pic but looks washed out on the colored wall.
If you're trying to sell the sizzle - pic on the left.
If you want detail - pic on the right.
To me, your presentation is most likely trying to show the quality of what something will look like when finished and you want a picture that "snaps" for the "Wow!" factor. As they say, the devil is in the details but before you get to that point, you have to sell the sizzle to capture the clients interest.
Something with a washed out appearance doesn't convey the message I think you want to present. And one final point..... don't make excuses for the presentation to the client. It is what you made it and if you're not happy with it - find another way to get your idea's across.
Bob S.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

My personal preference would be the one on the left; it just seems to be a sharper, better defined image. But that's just one person's opinion.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both have good and bad points, one on left is a harder and crisper image then one on right, one on left seems clearer but I don't like the way the tile looks on the right side of the sink unit, seems to be very out of square, right hand pic is the same but the softer image makes the tile look better. I would go with the low horsepower pic since both give a good professional image. I like the right one better but only slightly.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

It all depends upon your audience and what you are trying to tell them. I realize that this doesn't tell you much but that is gospel. That said, it also ties into your presentation and your speaking style. Being a veteran of lots of sciency presentations (some international), a little humor and some "punch and zip" kept people awake and interested. You are there to sell AND to entertain. Have fun with it (I am thinking that your speaking style is similar to your writing style).     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Both images have good points, I can't say one is "obviously" better. And they are not EXACTLY the same - the tiles around the edges indicate a slightly different field of view between the images - which does affect one's perception. The sink in the left images appears slightly closer - which adds to its "presence".
My opinions: The right image appears more realistic, softer edges and shadows, more texture. And a more natural contrast level. This could possibly pass as a picture.
The left image has an unnaturally high contrast level. The colors are more vivid, and there is less texture in the surfaces. The shadows are unrealistically sharp. It is obviously computer generated. It also has more "snap" - kind of a "better than real life" quality to it. (For any film photographers reading - it looks like some Velvia landscapes - more/better than was actually there.)
Both could be used for presentations - personal preference could pick either one over the other - depending on the desired effect. If time is the overriding consideration, go for the fastest (Ray tracing) - which is certainly the left one...
Or if you want the right side look (Renderosity) can't you just queue up the rendering tasks and let them run by themselves or overnight? -- JeffB remove no.spam. to email
Robatoy wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't move the camera between renderings. I didn't crop the images carefully either. But you're right, upon further experimentation, that minimal difference is noticeable. The human eye is amazing. In a similar vein, we established during some tests at the National Research Centre in Ottawa, that 1/10 of a dB difference in volume is easily detectable by the human ear. Linearity and distortion levels are another matter. We actually LIKE distortion if it is the 'right' kind.

Timing is everything in this case. The Raytracing took about 10 seconds, the Radiosity (image on the right), 3+ minutes.
When doing a presentation, the potential client can select a colour/ pattern from a palette and have the countertop render in front of their eyes on top of an image of their kitchen/service counter/display as a background.
I have been doing this for years, and always did a couple of renderings ( and they DID take overnight in the early days) and took them to print. Now that computers are so much smaller and faster, it would be nice to do this real time. I guess the question is, is the 3 minute wait worth it for a slightly more realistic image? The fact that some people like the 'snap' of the left image, makes me wonder if that 'snap', and the speed, would be more effective.
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

I suppose you could "read" each individual client and give them what they want.
I am reminded of a story I read about a local roofing guy who did a little computer magic from the roof top. He had a laptop and a baby-portable printer. He would go up on the rooftop, make some measurements, etc, imput the data into the computer and print out a complete estimate from the rooftop.
It would include lots of extra info above and beyond the actual roofing estimate. People were so blown away by this guy's technical wizardry, they often signed the estimate on the spot. And he priced himself about 30 - 40 % above the market rate too.
It was simply a flashy sales presentation. And it worked too!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do the 10 sec near real time ray trace to keep the discussion going. The quick and dirty is probably good enough for a client to say, "wrong color tile" or "change that". Once you get through the quick decision tree, then start up the high quality render and use the render time to work on the softer side the sale: any questions? Time frame? and of course the upsell if applicable. Do you leave CD's with images (watermarked with company info of course)?
That being said, I personnaly like the raytraced version. But I do medical imaging day in and day out try to get sharper resolution of boundaries between pieces-parts. And so what if it does look CG? It IS CG, do you need to apologize for that? But then, most people can't look at a floor plan and visualize a room. Heck, most people can't look at an empty room and see what it would look like with furniture and different colored walls.
hex -30-
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote: <snip>

<snip>
Seemingly minimal differences can be quite frustrating. When doing A-B testing of audio - if volume levels are not precisely matched, the marginally louder source will generally be preferred over the softer one. With photographic images, there are many more dimensions to potentially equalize - contrast, color balance, field of view, resolution, etc.
Careful with those comments about audio distortion - you could ignite a vicious flame war. And don't forget to use the special green marker pen to keep the photons from leaking out the edges of your CDs... ;-)

You could go through the selection process using the quicker raytracing, then render the final selection using the slower renderosity algorithms. -- JeffB remove no.spam. to email
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have yet to walk away from a discussion, heated or otherwise, even slightly scratched. When it comes to subjective evaluation, the tests and the documented results, I have done my homework. When separated from their pre-conceived ideas, even the very best of those (usually self proclaimed) 'Golden Ears' will fall flat on their faces. IOW, hide the stuff they are listening to behind acoustically transparent curtains. Make sure that the volume levels are set very precisely to identical levels, and I will wager whatever one likes proving that a $200 power amp can't be told apart from a $5000.00 amplifier. (Assuming that both are decent quality products of similar power) More to the point, those Golden Ears will NOT be able to tell the difference between speaker wires or green markers on the edge of CD's, or even the difference between CD players. There are (were) differences between electro-mechanical transducers. Phono pick-ups, microphones, and loudspeakers. But those, also, will astound the golden ears when they are deprived of the visual contact of their mega-buck babies when a pair of $500, well designed, speakers shit all over them.
My mentor, Dr. Floyd E. Toole shed a lot of light on the validity of blind tests. (Fortunately, that also included a blind test of a variety of scotch whiskies... again, when you don't know what you're tasting, suddenly you forget all the reasons why you're supposed to like that expensive single malt.)
I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the audio business.
r
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

Women's cosmetics, especially skin care, AKA: Pussy Paint.
Was in it for a while, talk about snake oil, nothing I know even comes close.
Lew
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ohhh yes indeed. That would be snake oil in the most literal sense of the word. Pussy Paint aka War Paint. (They want to look good for US!)(Buy me a fifth of bourbon, works too.)(I don't think Angela should read this, but if she does, let me haste to point out that she doesn't need any cosmetics.)
I tried wearing a menstrual pad once and STILL sucked at tennis. I guess you can't believe anything coming out of Madison Ave anymore.
.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

It coulda been worse ... Tampex is a big advertiser.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I shoulda known better than to open one of your posts wile drinking tea. A heads-up woulda been nice too...*wipes keyboard* Sheeesh...LOL
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.