Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My 3D Architectural Visualizations

Rate this topic


Sergio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, i'm new to this forum. I work as a 3d artist for architects, and based on some good feedback, I thought you might be interested in my work. My job is to turn sketches and technical drawings into lifelike images and videos of buildings, in order to help architects and developers communicate their designs to clients and buyers.

You can see more of my images at www.lissone3d.com. If you like my work, definitely check out the showreel vid on the site, which includes my best video work so far.

I designed the first building and landscape, which is a mix between traditional Omani and minimalist design. The rest were designed by architects.

Oman-Parliament-House-1.jpg

Acacia-Avenue.jpg

Dubai-Development-2.jpg

D-Gate-Al-Jadaf.jpg

Azzura-Tower-1.jpg

Azzura-Tower-2.jpg

home.jpg

For the past few years, i have had some unusual ideas for architecture and landscaping, something that is very different from anything I have ever seen built, a style that all about aesthetics, with function as an afterthought. When i discovered Rand last year, I was blown away by her portrayal of Howard Roarke's architecture. Based on her portrayal, i have decided that my goal is to become a property developer and designer, so that i may have absolute control over design. My favorite building is probably the Sydney Opera House, however the people in charge compromised the artist's vision and ruined the base of the building. Still, a beautiful building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent work, Sergio. They don't just look real, but super-real!

Reminds me of the times I did architectural photography with a large-format view camera.

Designs are great too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are incredible, I'd like to know what you used to render with. I have some experience with Softimage/Maxwell, but it's been a while. Nowadays I'm more involved with BIM architecture and modelling at the firm I work for.

I found it interesting what you said about form and function. There are some good examples of the polar opposites. One one side is the fool of architecture, Frank Ghery, who completely tosses functionality out the window. He was responsible for the sweeping, metal Bilbao Guggenheim in Spain, a museum with curved walls. If you think about it, how easy is it to hang a flat painting on a curved wall properly? Not easy. Not to mention his awkward space planning leaves a lot of unusable space inside, as walls come to such strange corners. The building also leaks like mad, representing a breach in understanding between what an architect can design and what a contractor can actually build, i.e. a breach between the mind (the architect) and reality (The contractor).

On the opposite side is the Bauhaus, which was an architecture school that brought functionality to the period of silly neo-classicism. Think Roark Vs. Keating. The Bauhaus popularized styles such as New Objectivity (ding ding! Wikipedia that one.) and the modern International style, those glass skyscrapers of very, very simple form. Usually rectangles, from a cynical point of view.

It's interesting what you say about the Sydney Opera House, as one one hand it's an aesthetic beauty, on the other, it's a functional nightmare. The acoustics are terrible, which entirely defeats the purpose of having an opera house in the first place. Why have it if it doesn't sound right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are incredible, I'd like to know what you used to render with. I have some experience with Softimage/Maxwell, but it's been a while. Nowadays I'm more involved with BIM architecture and modelling at the firm I work for.

Thank you! I rendered them using Cinema 4D 9.6, and did some of the modeling in AutoCAD. You won't get those colours in any renderer, though - that was all photoshop enhancement and manual recolouring.

I found it interesting what you said about form and function. There are some good examples of the polar opposites. One one side is the fool of architecture, Frank Ghery, who completely tosses functionality out the window. He was responsible for the sweeping, metal Bilbao Guggenheim in Spain, a museum with curved walls.

Some of his buildings look pretty cool, you can see a consistent theme running throughout each development. However, I read that his design approach is to scrunch up pieces of paper randomly and then draw inspiration from the more interesting ones. I don't think there is enough 'math' in his designs. If I were designing a building development, I would make it look as if some mathematical equations were driving the shapes of all of the buildings, so that by looking at one, you can almost predict what the next one ought to be. I was amazed by Rand's description of Roarke's developments - it was so close to what I would like to see. Some buildings mimic biological forms - one architect with some very interesting buildings is Santiago Calatrava, who did an amazing planetarium in Spain.

If you think about it, how easy is it to hang a flat painting on a curved wall properly? Not easy. Not to mention his awkward space planning leaves a lot of unusable space inside, as walls come to such strange corners. The building also leaks like mad, representing a breach in understanding between what an architect can design and what a contractor can actually build, i.e. a breach between the mind (the architect) and reality (The contractor).

I can imagine, lol. Interior spaces is one area that frustrates me, because rectangular spaces usually look better. I beleive that interior design is far more sophisticated than architecture - many, many interiors seem to have a great, integrated visual style.

On the opposite side is the Bauhaus, which was an architecture school that brought functionality to the period of silly neo-classicism. Think Roark Vs. Keating. The Bauhaus popularized styles such as New Objectivity (ding ding! Wikipedia that one.) and the modern International style, those glass skyscrapers of very, very simple form. Usually rectangles, from a cynical point of view.

I like the detail and visual richness of neoclassical buildings, but their overall shapes are very silly. Rand got it completely right when she detailed all of the problems with them. Very modern buildings look nice - i have seen some amazingly beautiful variations on minimalist boxes, but they get a bit boring.

It's interesting what you say about the Sydney Opera House, as one one hand it's an aesthetic beauty, on the other, it's a functional nightmare. The acoustics are terrible, which entirely defeats the purpose of having an opera house in the first place. Why have it if it doesn't sound right?

Good point. In my opinion, one should try to design only beautiful forms, and then ignore projects where those forms cannot be applied functionally. An alternative is to scale up a beautiful building envelope in order to fit the fuinctional space inside. There would be some wasted space in between the 2 layers, so such a building may be more expensive.

Edited by Sergio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Your work is breathtaking.

I'm a naturally inquisitive person, and on my spare time I like to challenge myself with new tasks. I would love to give some modeling a try, as later in life I do plan to give architecture a try (in what capacity, I'm not yet sure.) What advice would you give to a newbie, who would like take on this type of rendering as a hobby? What skills should I build? What reading should I do? How should I look at the world differently? What are some easy projects to get my feet wet?

I'm a web designer by trade, as such I'm quite computer and design savvy, so I think I can leverage a lot of my existing skills.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...