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
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,
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.
Thanks in advance.
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
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.
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.
BTW, how's your screen door working out?
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
Peruse. if you will, what these guys are up to: http://www.etemplatesystem.com /
And, for a mere $ 54,000.00 you get one of these:
"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,
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
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.
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.
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).
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".
The right image appears more realistic, softer edges and shadows, more
texture. And a more natural contrast level. This could possibly pass as
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?
remove no.spam. to email
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'
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.
I suppose you could "read" each individual client and give them what they
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
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!
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.
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,
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.
remove no.spam. to email
I have yet to walk away from a discussion, heated or otherwise, even
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
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
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
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.
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.