|
|
| Interview
with Jonathan Kletzien of Advanced Media Design Inc. Since its inception in 1992, Advanced Media Design's founding partners have dedicated their digital studio to the art of architectural rendering. A firm committed to professional excellence, AMD's partners and staff devote focused attention to the unique attention to the unique demands and opportunities of each project. CGA: Could you introduce yourself? Jon Kletzien, I am one of the partners of advanced media design. CGA: Tell us about your background and how you originally became involved with computer graphics and the architectural industry? We're all people with an Architectural education who decided we really liked the city of Providence. Most of us got into computers in college but a couple of us have been pretty hard-core technology aficionados all through life. CGA: Can you tell us a little bit about AMD Rendering and how it was started? First thing, actually amdrendering.com is our web site but officially we're advanced media design, inc. and that is where you'll find us in the phonebook. AMD is a boutique architectural rendering studio located in an old knife manufacturing building (in downtown Providence). There are seven of us and we range in age from 45 to 25, and we pretty much listen to NPR almost all the time though there is majority headphone contingent as well. The office culture itself is pretty much as informal as it gets (wardrobe and hours), but we do take the work very seriously. We originally started in 1992 upon Richard and my graduating college, and while we did identify that computer graphics were the way of the future and we needed to get into it, truly another great motivation was that there were no jobs in architecture proper. Initially we anticipated that there would be a AutoLISP programming as well as a AutoCAD drafting component to the business, but soon realized that rendering would be a better way to position ourselves as we had both computer knowledge as well as a strong art/architecture background.
CGA: Can you tell us about your team, how you divide projects amongst the team and the different strengths that everyone brings to the table? The production staff consists of six of us and is loosely thought of as three teams of two (each consisting of a modeller and a renderer). So for smaller or long term jobs typically only two people will get involved with it and it will progress linearly. However when a project is large, or a rush we will involve four, five, or even all of us. Each of us,(Jewels, Christian, Jayson, James, Richard and Jon) have our place in the production line, and additionally each of us has at least one interest or skill that is employed to further the business. For instance Jayson handles the webpage, James is responsible for office supplies and incorporating new technology, Jon does the books and educational efforts, Richard works with Andrea developing the marketing and schedules the office, and Jewels does the internal computer maintenance. CGA: I understand you have an ongoing debate in your office about photorealism and its place in the architectural CG world. Can you elaborate? There is no doubt in anyone's mind here that for rendering programs to get better they have to be developed along the lines of mimicking physical reality. That said, none of us really understand what the point is of illustrators pursuing the same aim, and we say that for two reasons.
First, as we understand the role of illustrator, it is similar to the architectural photographer. In some ways you are in fact providing a document of the building, but you are looking to document it in the most complimentary or architecturally illuminative light. In this pursuit, photographers consistently introduce their own lighting, move furniture, take pictures from impossible views, expose for different lengths of time, change types of film, not to mention cropping, dodging and burning in the darkroom. In other words, in the pursuit of making the architectural concept graphically explicit they will alter either the physical reality, or the tools they're using to capture it. We're down with photorealism, but advocate looking at the great photographers (Like Shulman, Stoller, Hedrich, Steichen or Rosenthal), and understanding that there is craft and authorship in what they do, not just dumb luck. Second, even if you disagree with the premise above, and truly conceive your job as a way to previsualize a future reality, what will be your role when computers can do all this by themselves? If you're aim is nothing more than what math provides how are you relevant when the architectural software can take the model and lighting the architects have made and have the renderings solved? By introducing a graphic sensibility or authorship in the representation, you are starting to protect yourself from obsolescence. In the grand scheme of things, if there is only one solution to a problem then eventually computers will be able to do it by themselves, if there are many, there will always be a role for artists. CGA: The architectural CG world has obviously evolved from more traditional mediums, namely photography and traditional illustration. What are you thoughts on the evolution that this industry has taken over the past decade? Truly astounding though I don’t think the end users are quite keeping pace with the software manufacturers because a lot of people’s renderings look the same. Right now the industry does not support the breadth of styles that traditional media or photography supports. There are a few people out there that are doing something different (ie Andy Hickes, Lee Dunnette, Robert Frank, or Ernest Burden III) but most digital artistry looks a lot alike.
CGA: Your studio has a very extensive portfolio of fairly large-scale projects. How have you been able to attract such large projects? In all truth, we’ve been very fortunate that our clients have expressed so much confidence in us. But after ten years, we are some of the older guys in the industry and we know how to manage projects of various sizes. We’re pretty easy to work with as far as not taking ourselves too seriously. And last but not least, we don’t have a NYC or other major metropolitan center overhead, so our prices have always been pretty reasonable. CGA: You have won many prestigious awards for your imagery, which one stands out the most and for what project did you win the award? Certainly the Hugh Ferriss Prize for the National World War II memorial, and for a couple of reasons. First, our client (Friedrich St. Florian) had won the architectural competition for the commission. And second, it was the first digital and first team created image to win the prize. The prize is sponsored by the American Society of Architectural Illustrators (www.asai.ws) and is the preeminent prize within the illustration industry. To have AMD in the same role call as past winners Tom Schaller, Lee Dunnette, and Steve Oles is quite an honor. CGA: How are you pushing the envelope? What techniques, methods, process are you using to separate yourselves from your competition? I am not so sure we push the envelope in any way, in fact I think if anything we are wary of new fangled things, and wait until the new technology stabilizes until we get something new on board. There are at least four reasons for this. First, cost of new software. Second, new software is an untried/unknowable entity and trying to incorporate it within the extremely tight timeframes of most of our projects is risky. Third, more often than not the effects that new software provide quickly seem to devolve into cliché ( Morphing, imagecels people, raytraced shadows etc…). And fourth, anticipating and learning every new bit of software conditions you to think about your job as a computer operator, and not an illustrator. If we can indeed be separated from the rest of the pack (this is in the eye of the beholder and I don’t know if we do) it is the mindset here, we are illustrators first and digitally based as a matter of necessity. CGA: Who or what has influenced the style of your renderings the most? I think traditional illustrators have influenced us more than anything. Even if our stuff doesn’t look like theirs, Paul Stevenson Oles, Tom Schaller, Hugh Ferriss, Jules Guerrin are real inspirations.
CGA: What are your thoughts on the future of architectural rendering? Do you see a particular style or trend becoming more popular? Clearly radiosity is the rage right now, though we can’t seem to figure out how people can do those renderings in the amount of time we’re usually given. The problem of course is that straight radiosity (lightscape/3dsViz4) still seems incapable of grappling with the detail and size of files we’re working with, independent of the geometry changes that always come the illustrator’s way. I think as we see a lot of firms converge towards similar solutions, there will inevitably be a backlash towards traditional media (in fact I think it has already started). But eventually as our eyes catch up to the limits of the radiosity aesthetic, there will be a place for all of us within the field. CGA: Can you tell us about how AMD rendering manages a typical project? Can you walk us through the process? It really depends on the project, sometimes we have a model but more often we build it, sometimes we have construction documents to work from, sometimes we have sketches and precedent photos. Sometimes we have weeks and sometimes we have days, we just find the best fit and try to turn it around. The ideal project has probably two views and would take place over a week and a half. There would be three days of modeling that would probably involve two hardcore modelers and one renderer. There would be another three days of rendering where each view was placed in the hands of one of the renderers. We try very hard to devote one day of painting to every view to massage the straight rendering and then on day eight we would print the images out. CGA: What do you feel is the most important aspect of a project that ensures a successful image? Having a clear vision as to where you want to take an image before you start rendering. CGA: What software and hardware are you using, and why have you made those choices? We use PC’s and we’re on Dell Pentium 4’s. On them we are running AutoCAD 2002, 3D Studio Viz 4.2, and Ron Scott’s Hi-res QFX 8. We use this combo because we started with these or their precedents 10 years ago and now this is now how we think. We know what the programs can do, how to fake what we need to and how to paint anything else. We initially made the choices of AutoCAD and 3Dstudio because that is what we used in school and they seemed to be the best choice for compatibility with our clients. We got Hi-Res QFX (www.qfx.com) because in 1992 it was the only 24 bit image editing program for DOS and even on Windows 2000 we still think QFX is much faster, cleaner, and more logical than Photoshop. CGA: What type of project would you like to work on, but have not yet tackled? Why? Doing an environment for gaming or educational purposes does intrigue us, but it isn’t something we have pursued both because of our size, and lack of that particular technical expertise. I think it interests us because it seems to present more aesthetic latitude, longer timeframes, and probably more profit. CGA:
What is in the future for AMD rendering?
|
|
|||
