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

Very rigid camera work here, comes off very forceful and hard. Dead symmetry can be just that, so I would avoid it unless very powerful to do so. Very, very reflective, common in a lot of Asian design and materials, but still could use some reflectivity mapping to break it up. Also seems to have lost of lot of the very rich and subtle GI work this entrant is so expert with. The strong tone is probably successful w/ the building owner or client, though..

Arnold Gallardo

When one views this piece, once is forced to asked why show the first floor only? Why is the camera work quite limited? Why are there no lighting condition changes here in this space. The repitition of the camera work makes the whole space unengaging and uninteresting. You are selling this space so you need to make it more appealing, there is a second floor mezanine space here and your camera work did not have to be mostly on the horizontal plane but could also be mostly in the vertical.

I am surprised to have learn that the author has asian roots because the engaging camera work we see in cinema today comes from asia. This space really is betrayed by the camera work as well as the relatively flat lighting shown. The absence of people as well make it very cold and distant.

The lack of proper tone mapping also betrays this space. It is mostly middle tones with bright splotches of color. It just make the piece fairly monochromatic because that's the most dominant palette perceived. The absence of hightlights in this scene kills the ambience of the space. It does not feel large nor does it have any grandeur, it just exists as presented. In this case, the space become uninviting. Better tonal mapping, lighting and camera moves would have worked here better.

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

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

Ernest Burden

There is an energy to your piece which matches the space and its complexity. The animation is fast-paced, quick-cutting, loud and contrasty. But it feels very empty. Not only are there no people, there are no signs of life or use. You could show some plants, for example. Or some posters for art shows or performances, even an informal seating area would help. Something to say 'people use this place, but they all stepped out for a moment'. Lack of people is a common problem in architetural animation. The next biggest problem is usually when people are included. So don't take these comments as too critical.

The lead-in is interesting, going from the wireframe to radiosity mesh to rendered viw. I'm not sure that would be a good idea if your audience were 'normal' people. It makes a point of being artificial images, when you really want them to believe its real, or could be. For the arch-vis crowd its fine.

The floor material works, as does the column surface. But the artwalls feel like flat maps (which they are). It robs them of impact, and you use them for exactly that.

While the piece is high-energy, the camera moves don't seem to go anywhere in particular. Its backwards, forwards, backwards, forwards, spin, repeat. I don't get a sense of story, just a lot of rushing about. But the music is great!

My biggest problem with the piece is how the elements don't work well together, from good materials to bad maps, and such even lighting that nothing seems emphasized. Worst of all is the yellow lighting a some column tops and vaious coves--it looks like paint. The effect of light spilling from them is lost.

__________________
Ernest Burden III
AcmeDigital
architectural rendering