Jeff Mottle

Judges: Please post your critiques here

CGarchitect.com Members, you may view the finalist's animations here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/challeng...hallenge4_2.wmv

__________________
Jeff Mottle
CGarchitect.com

ehanson

Similar comments as before based on the still, but in this case a few things to improve. Scale of the city feels small or as a miniature, perhaps could be solved by more attention to idiosyncratic weathering and dirt. The depth of field chosen also belies the scale. Perhaps add power lines or known identifiers of scale. The texturing is too consistent and sterile, harkening to Sky Captain a bit. Fresnel behavior on the glass would help. Animation of both vehicles and camera is too rigid and needs more variance. But, a good value study and well on it’s way.

Arnold Gallardo

The choice of perspective, camera work and the length of each clip is quite effective. They work rather well for the time length they occupy.

However, the pieces do feel small and lacks weight and monumental presence. A building in a scale like that requires a 'Albert Speer' kind of lighting solution (Cathedral of Lights) if not a David Lean touch.

Overall though the color palette works as well as the animation of the little elements. It does evoke the period its inspired from but lacks the cohesion needed for everything to tie together because you never really made this piece yours. What I mean by that is 'You only imitate to surpass' and to do that you have to make this piece yours and not make it feel as 'derivative' as much.

With more work in making the building heavy and monumental as well as subtle changes in the lighting, you can make this a really effective piece.

__________________
_ _ ______________ _ _
Arnold Gallardo
Visual Content Creator
Technical Writer

Author:'3D Lighting: History,Concepts
and Techniques'

Ernest Burden

I think you got stuck into this Metropolis thing--because I don't see very much of the original crit comments reflected in this new version.

The biggest problem--besides being mostly derivitive vs. interpretive--is the static grain. The whole whole point of grain is to soften the work and recall one of the properties of old film stock. Static grain does neither, and instead calls undue attention to itself. It becomes the medium on which the work is projected, not the medium of which its made. It steps right out of the clip and smacks you. I doubt that was what you intended.

Moving on...to a large extent this piece is about things that go. It starts off nicely with the roadway with many interesting cars. I want to see the cars, feel a few zoom by me. But alas, only one does and all-too-quickly we are off to the next mode of transport--trains. But again our time is too short. You really should show enough of the passage of the train to allow the viewer to get a sense of what it is before zooming off again. Or don't show it. The point being anything you show takes a short time to comprehend. If you don't allow enough time it leaves the viewer struggling to keep up. Maybe some of us are a little slow, allow for it.

Now the airplanes come. And come and more come and zoom around before more airplanes come and zoom around. Maybe its a progression--up, and in, towards the megatower. But no, we do that then go back out. The last shot pulls back and we see the entire scene with yet more planes, a hint of the trains again...but no cars. I liked those cars. They would have made good bookends.

The best shot is the one looking up at the tower while the clouds roll by. It's really well done. I also like the first 5 seconds, with the cars then moving up. It gives you a real sense that you are going somewhere, purposefully. Less well done are the shots in the middle, where the rendering looks like a scale model. I'm not sure what produces that effect, I'm hoping one of the other judges talks about that. Then, the last shot looks good again but draws back without a point. You aren't showing anything new, and not ending with any interesting composition, or setting up any patterns in the architecture that tell a story about what isn't shown...its just a pullback. You can tell from what I just wrote what I think you need here.

So the point is not to recreate a masterpiece, it is to use it as a platform for your own statement.

__________________
Ernest Burden III
AcmeDigital
architectural rendering