Opinion please.. kinda OT and OT

[Robatoy]

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.

in advance.

r

[Doug Winterburn]

right hand pic

[Tom Veatch]

Both have points in their favor, but on balance, the one on the right.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[BobS]

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.

[Mark & Juanita]

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.

[Curran Copeland]

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.

[jo4hn]

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

[JeffB]

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:

[dadiOH]

The one on the right has too low gamma and/or contrast and saturation. When tweaked to more closely resemble the one on the left the painted wall has considerably more detail than the left.

As is, I'd use the one on the left. I still would even if the one on the right is fixed.

[Rick M]

The one on the right looks better to me ... and I couldn't figure out why until I looked closely at the sink base on both. The one on the right has the correct shadowing, the one on the left looks overexposed. While the color on the left is more saturated, you seem to be losing contrast, which is part of what a rendering needs to give you.

Hope this helps,

Rick

[Frank Boettcher]

First glance, the one on the left, however, if your potential client is going to sit and study the plan, the right picture is much more realistic and seems to "settle" in the mind better.

Frank

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

un-technical eye, is the one on the right.

[B A R R Y]

I like the right.

The shadows seem more realistic for an interior shot. I also like the tile texturing on the right.

[Swingman]

Went back and took another look in an attempt to quantify the "why" of my above.

Providing I assume correctly that the subject/focal point is supposed to be the pedestal sink, and not the checkerboard wall, the increased contrast of the checkerboard wall in the background on the left frame definitely pulls my eye away from the pedestal ... this despite the fact that the pedestal in the left frame has a sharper focus on this monitor.

Muddled or not, that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...

[Robatoy]

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

[Lee Michaels]

"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!

[mjmwallace]

I like both,but the shadow is too much. Try to get a higher light angle. The sink sort of disappears into the shadow. Doesn't feel "quite" natural.

Push comes to shove: Left one.

MJ Wallace

[Colin B.]

of them qualifies as photorealistic though, so if "realistic" is your goal, then you need to either do more work or lower your standards. Not being derogatory here--true photorealism is really difficult, expensive (in terms of compute time), finicky, easy to screw up, and very seldom necessary. Honestly, both of these are quite good. The one on the right could almost be a slightly posterised photograph at first glance.

Colin

[hex]

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-

[JeffB]

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