They view them as a small expected one-time service rather than an evolving set of documents and the fee structure is usually indicative of that.Īlso, i just realized i replied to a 9 year old comment. Architects view renderings inappropriately, in my opinion. And its not uncommon to have to go back to the rendering outfit and pay for another round in order to pick up changes (sometimes for permitting reasons), which is sometimes absorbed by the architecture firm.Īll of this is due to the unrealistic expectation that rendering is simply pressing a button rather than acknowledging that it is actually a quite laborious and intensive process. But even still, sometimes you end up paying for 4 renderings, and only 3 are usable due to the unnecessary time-crunch that is always baked in to the turnaround time. You also get the best results if a person who is capable of doing the renderings in-house is the one coordinating with the render outfit, because that person "speaks the language" of rendering and can give clear and actionable requests. The end result is that you typically get a mixed bag of results depending on the rendering outfit you use, and the person who's doing the work, which varies greatly. So they end up getting the rendering without paying the premium to receive them. I typically enjoy rendering, but the billable time to do the renderings make it impractical for production level renders, which is stupid, because it means that the fee structure does not include the appropriate costs to do a quality rendering in-house, even though those deliverables are still expected by the client. $3k to $8k sounds about right-though they shouldn't be charging you for render time (un-supervised computer time) unless they're using a render farm (you pay should a premium for the quick turnaround)Īgreed. I find it much easier to match a camera to something that I've personally taken-using someone else's image may just lead to more hassle and wasted time. Also, imported geometry is either too dense, not dense enough, or has messed-up meshing (triangles/quads of irregular size and dimension)-this can lead to more geometry than necessary and texturing issues (textures won't map correctly) that are sometimes impossible to fix without a re-model and/or significant time wasted tweaking the imported geometry.Ĭamera matching is another thing entirely-there are programs that can effectively match cameras, but they still require some hand tweaking and for effective matching need good resolution and knowledge of the real-world measurements. Then there's also the geometry overhead to consider, which affects how fast the render will go and how much geometry will need to be processed (some engines take all geometry into account, not just the visible)-if it's just an interior shot with a very focused field of view, it's quite typical to only model the surfaces that are seen-walls are just the visible plane, etc. AutoCAD specifically is wacky-if you're not drawing consistently clockwise or counter-clockwise, the normals will get all messed up on import and in some cases will require a re-model (even with 'unify normals,' depending on the complexity of the shapes). taking someone else's model is very tricky and sometimes more work. I used to do this freelance (no longer have the time unfortunately) and have had people try to give me models they've already done-it's usually just a waste of time and energy (and actually cheaper for me to re-model). Sounds like you have a quote and are using Archinect to determine if it's outrageous or not.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |