[mgroeteke]

here a small render done with RC5 - specially for today, valentine's





cheers

markus

[johann.dugge]

is that pool really tiny compared to the chairs?Like the water & the tiles tho!

[mgroeteke]

is that pool really tiny compared to the chairs?Like the water & the tiles tho!

yes, it's an accurate model of an existing building (casa gaspar) in spain by architect alberto campo baeza. have a look at this site for more information:

http://architecture.mit.edu/~clin12/main.html

i built the model some years ago for a CGI challenge and it remained one of my preferred testing models.

the only thing i did change/add is the pool mosaique - the scene was 'tuned' for this kind of 'valentine's architectural fantasy'

cheers

markus

[mgroeteke]

night scene:





cheers

markus

[mgroeteke]

i thought i'll add these older beta renderings to this gallery. if i've time, i'll do a new version of this scene when 1.0 will be out.

here the original thread:

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5143

and here the images:

























cheers

markus

[glebe digital]

Hey! I was going to do the Van de Rohe myself soon.............[think I'll turn my next free patch to something else].

V nice.

[parsnip lee]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's Mies van deR Rohe. And also, something about the perspectives, especially the one of the steps and of the enclosed pool space seem proportionaly incorrect, the spaces seem much wider than they actually are. From the aerial view the building seems correct, so maybe its just the cone of vision you are using, in other words you are extending it past the normal 60 degrees, (the cone of vision on a normal human being) which is causing distortion in the form of proportionally incorrect images. sorry to rant, just thought I'd let you know.

[mgroeteke]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's Mies van deR Rohe. And also, something about the perspectives, especially the one of the steps and of the enclosed pool space seem proportionaly incorrect, the spaces seem much wider than they actually are. From the aerial view the building seems correct, so maybe its just the cone of vision you are using, in other words you are extending it past the normal 60 degrees, (the cone of vision on a normal human being) which is causing distortion in the form of proportionally incorrect images. sorry to rant, just thought I'd let you know.

ever heard of a wideangle photography?

[parsnip lee]

yes, but wide angle photography distorts in all directions, not just one.

If you look at this picture, you can see that the pool is not nearly as wide (from front to back) as you've shown it




and by the way, I am extremely jealous of the computer situation you've got going there, no wonder you can turn out so many images.

[arch4d]

well, parsnip, for me it looks quite right:




and, just for understanding, there are 2 pools...

[mgroeteke]

as far as i know, currently maxwell doesn't support any lens distortion. what you can see here is a photograph with the typical fish eye lens distortion.

the 3d model was built accurately using the original plans and sections of the mies drawings and also the plan material from the current reconstruction. the main pool may therefore be different by size from the one you will find in some simple free (but incorrect) models of the pavilion.

have a look at some good book with less distorted photos of this part of the building and you will agree that it's ok

as far as for the mac specs, i'm putting them for technical reasons (because they are useful for bug feedbacks etc), not to make anyone seriously jealous. as i am running a studio, those G5 are not the only ones we use, anyway - LOL

[aitraaz]

well I've seen some of the barvellona pavillion images before, really brilliant stuff. Mies would be proud...

[Olivier Cugniet]

great barcelona pavillon pics

[parsnip lee]

as far as i know, currently maxwell doesn't support any lens distortion. what you can see here is a photograph with the typical fish eye lens distortion.

yes, but from my photograph, you can see that the distance from the edge of the (enclosed) pool to the back wall is considerably lengthened in this render.

the 3d model was built accurately using the original plans and sections of the mies drawings and also the plan material from the current reconstruction. the main pool may therefore be different by size from the one you will find in some simple free (but incorrect) models of the pavilion.

I have in fact visited the rebuilt version of the building, and drew extensively as well as photographed. This was not meant to belittle you in any way, I was just raising the point that due to the camera angles you were using the proportions in some renders seemed out of whack. In a buiding belabored by the rigors of proportion I thought this was a relevant comment to make. I think these renderings are absolutely stunning, dont get me wrong.

as far as for the mac specs, i'm putting them for technical reasons (because they are useful for bug feedbacks etc), not to make anyone seriously jealous. as i am running a studio, those G5 are not the only ones we use, anyway - LOL

I only envy your specs, not commenting on the validity of your putting them there.

[mgroeteke]

as far as i know, currently maxwell doesn't support any lens distortion. what you can see here is a photograph with the typical fish eye lens distortion.

...
yes, but from my photograph, you can see that the distance from the edge of the (enclosed) pool to the back wall is considerably lengthened in this render.
....

the 3d model was built accurately using the original plans and sections of the mies drawings and also the plan material from the current reconstruction. the main pool may therefore be different by size from the one you will find in some simple free (but incorrect) models of the pavilion.

I have in fact visited the rebuilt version of the building, and drew extensively as well as photographed. This was not meant to belittle you in any way, I was just raising the point that due to the camera angles you were using the proportions in some renders seemed out of whack. In a buiding belabored by the rigors of proportion I thought this was a relevant comment to make. I think these renderings are absolutely stunning, dont get me wrong.

as far as for the mac specs, i'm putting them for technical reasons (because they are useful for bug feedbacks etc), not to make anyone seriously jealous. as i am running a studio, those G5 are not the only ones we use, anyway - LOL

I only envy your specs, not commenting on the validity of your putting them there.

no problem, of course... as you may know, the distortion of a fisheye lens is somewhat non-linear. that means that the distances you might measure in photographs are distorted progressively more and more when going from the middle of the image to the border. this is why the proportions seem to be so different on the rendered image and on the photograph. so i would rather say, it's the fisheye photograph which shows a distorted scene, not the render!

i tried to show some kind of 'undistorted' wide angle images which maybe would be difficult to do as a real photo, with real lenses. CGI gives me a kind of rather 'free' look about a building which is following a simple (yet effective) but rigid proportional and modular system.

glad you like the renders