View camera technique and visualization (on the computer)

[henry_suryo]

Hi all,

I am curious if any contributors here have a similar experience to

share. By trade, in the architectural profession, I use a

CAD/Visualization software from the schematic design phase to

producing detailed construction drawings. This is not an endorsement

or marketing pitch, the software is Microstation, and I'm not related

to the developer, Bentley. In the schematic phase specifically, the

design is realized by 3d modeling and photorealistic material and

texture mapping. It's a very powerful design tool with accurate

previsualization of the final product. More pertinent to this forum,

after the modeling is done, the software allows you to set a camera

very similar to a view camera. You can select the aspect ratio of the

view, choose the lens, use rise/fall and tilt/swing corrections to an

extent, and control focus, depth of field and depth cueing. The best

part is you can control the sun's azimuth and altitude angles, color

temperature and other auxiliary lights. The sofware raytraces the

light rays accurately based on the ambient, reflective, refractive,

absorptive and other properties in the scene. Anyway, it's not quite

like setting up my 8x10 on the scene and developing and printing in

the wet darkroom, but I find the process quite intriguing and was

wondering if anybody uses a similar software. I'm also interested in

how such software is written or programmed in what language. But I

don't want to digress too much, in light of recent postings on what's

appropriate and not for this forum. Attached is a sample image (using

my "digital" 12x20!). And wherever it may be, best of light always.

Henry

[ralph_barker]

From a large-format photography perspective, modeling software could become the ultimate digital camera. Once the shape of the structure and the surface geometry is in the computer, being able to visualize the finished construction with some degree of reality is of obvious benefit to the architect and his/her client. Would you like your building with stippled stucco (click) or smooth (click)?

 

The degree of realism is just a matter of how much computing power and RAM one wants to put behind the process. Heck, for a few hundred thousand dollars, one might eliminate the need for an architectural photographer completely! The next step is being able to pick celebrities for the people on the street. J-Lo in slinky dress, J-Lo in jeans, J-Lo on bad hair day, J-Lo dumping Ben (but, keeping ring). The mind boggles. ;-)

 

I've often thought, however, that it would be cool to combine modeling software with USGS contour data and a solar azimuth program to help plan LF landscape trips. I've tried to do this somewhat manually by looking at a USGS map while running an solar program to estimate the best time of day to hit certain areas. Not always easy to visualize where the shadows are going to fall, though.

[paul freeman]

Hmm... where do the people come from? Do they come with the software or do you buy extra "people libraries"?

<p/>

 

Cheers

<p/>

 

Paul Freeman <p/>

 

http://www.architecturalimages.co.uk

[lbi115l]

Interesting. While you're at it, why not re-shoot Moonrise Over Hernandez with some poor natives in the foreground.

 

It's pretty realistic except for two things. One, you need to invert the notch code. Two, how often do you see a sky like that at the moment of exposure? If you want it to look real, figure in a horribly bleak sky, little black dots, a streak or two, some fingerprints, and one of those people just staring into the camera and pointing. THEN you have digital large-format. :)

[henry_suryo]

In this image, the people were added later from "people libraries", but it's possible to integrate them in the modeling phase so as to get correct height, placement and shadows. Jason, you're right, the notches are on the wrong side! Oops!. Sometimes to sell the image, I have to beautify in ways not possible in reality, such as lighting the north side of a building. There is also photomatch feature where you montage the design in an actual photograph in the right perspective. So, let me know if you want to add a new adobe church in the Moonrise photo! Thanks.

[max_wendt]

I noticed the notches too. Granted, I'm just starting out, so maybe I'm doing it wrong, but my notches are always underneath the flap and don't get exposed.

 

Maybe your digital film holder is just different than my physical ones. ;)

[doug_dolde]

Notches aside, it's quite well done. And I bet a lot more work than taking a real photograph.

[igor_johanson]

Your artificial picture is amazing. I have been playing with a Strata Studio Pro on my Mac a while ago, but not being an artist who can paint or draw anything without a ruler and a compass, I gave up. I am just taking photographs the traditional way.

[tedharris]

Kudos! It is a very well done and interesting image but let's not forget one of the key

comments Ralph made earlier, "Heck, for a few hundred thousand dollars, one might

eliminate the need for an architectural photographer completely!"

 

This is 5 to 6 figure software and my guess is that it is running on a fairly powerful

workstation not a microcomputer (although that could be a G5 these days).

[alan_agardi1]

A much more affordable alternative is to use the VectorWorks/RenderWorks combo package from Nemetschek (http://www.nemetschek.net). Or, if you're still using its predecessor, MiniCAD, then you can use StudioPro for the photorealistic rendering. I would opt for the former, though, on a new G5 PowerMac. And, it's not a huge expense - about $1,500 for the software, and another $6,000 for the G5 and the 23" StudioDisplay. Cheers.

[sk_arts]

I've tried Rise/Fall using Cinema 4DXL by rotating the axis and skewing the camera. Results were kind of flakey and moving the camera in camera view or object orientation was impossible.

 

The actual results were *weird* because the FOV was skewed, so effectivly you were looking straight on but diagonally, so an object directly in front of the lens would be viewed in the same place as an object slightly above. Who says no two things can exist in the same place at the same time?

 

New versions of C4DXL do not do this.

[oskar_ojala]

I used similar software a lot in the 90's. It was interesting to follow the development, as when desktop

computers became faster, more powerful rendering methods could be used, eg. displacement mapping, radiosity.

However, I don't think this benefits me that much in photography - computer generated 3D images could be an

artform in theirself, but the challenge is what to put in an image - modeling a real-life scene in great detail

is a bit boring - only useful for architectural and planning purposes. However, the complete control computer

graphics gives is very useful for someone with a good imagination and patience to construct a detailed scene.

It takes much practice to constuct good scenes - the same "eye" that a good photographer has is required!

 

These apps are mainly done in C, there's a lot of literature available on rendering techniques. If you're interested,

research backwards ray-tracing, shading algorithms, radiosity and possibly animation algorithms (all under 3d computer

graphics). Basically, this involves crunching a lot of numbers. One particular area of problem is to accurately model

the refraction of light and diffuse reflections (and in such ways that it doesn't take a liftime to compute!)

[jsbc]

Cool Henry! Any other samples?

 

Can you give us a crop so that we know what how much we can enlarge this, because resolution/ pixelation breaks down?

[henry_suryo]

Thank you all for responding, I'm amazed on how much I can learn from this forum. The architectural photographer is indispensable for high quality post construction images for marketing presentation or simply keeping record. But they can't photograph something that's not built and this is the real merit of this technology. It's simply a tool in helping to produce a better design and helping clients to see it easier than the usual, sometimes confusing, line drawings. Attached is a blow-up detail of the cornerpiece and it helped the contractor see how the mullions are fabricated, how the brick courses and their ins and outs, etc. The amount of detail you want to include just depends on your needs and how much time you can spend modeling it. When rasterizing it, you can use you final display size as to determine the pixel resolution needed. This is where your processor speed and the amount of RAM you have come in. Anyway, I take a wholly traditional approach to my 8x10 photography, there's just no substitute for the joy in this. I love the look of certain lenses, like a Dagor, but on the computer, imagine a lens with continuously variable focal lengths, unlimited angle of coverage, and unlimited resolving power!

[dan_smith]

It is so much simpler & less expensive to get a used Calumet or similar with a lens & practice with it. Polaroids work well and a basic kitchen/bathroom darkroom is inexpensive.

Why screw it up with computers?

[sk_arts]

I think Dan is anti-technology... For goodness sakes, this was just an interesting post that it COULD be done.

 

I was not aware that a calumet could photograph building which had not been constructed yet... I can't imagine what a Sinar could do... Does teh P2 Expert Kit come with a backhoe?