[Boris Ulzibat]

Boris, I'm not really proud what i'm about to say but I beleive you're one of the people who's interior scenes do not really need Maxwell at all since they all look very very flat. Why the heck using a slow photoreal pathracer for an interior that looks so flat and CG-ish??

And one more thing.
Are my interiors really that bad for someone who is working with them for only half a year, without any special education at all - all learned by myself?

[Hybaj]

Yes I also did noticed that your renderings are the smoothest around and so I thought it had to take massive amount of time.

I haven't said you're renderings are bad but they're not using the real potential of Maxwell. Look maxwell gives you the perfect lightning. Without a doubt with all variables you gave it, it gave you the absolute perfect output - unbiased.

So it seems that the problem lies elsehwere. Look at your materials.. they're too perfect.... in other words too flat. With such infinitely perfect modeling and infinitely perfectly smooth materials this world would look completly the same as the things you have rendered. We were born into an imperfect world so when we see something too perfect we perceive it as not very real. So give your renderings bumps, color variations, variable glosiness and all the stuff that represents the stuff we see everyday. Then our brain will definitely describe it as more real

[Boris Ulzibat]

Yes I also did noticed that your renderings are the smoothest around and so I thought it had to take massive amount of time.

I haven't said you're renderings are bad but they're not using the real potential of Maxwell. Look maxwell gives you the perfect lightning. Without a doubt with all variables you gave it, it gave you the absolute perfect output - unbiased.

So it seems that the problem lies elsehwere. Look at your materials.. they're too perfect.... in other words too flat. With such infinitely perfect modeling and infinitely perfectly smooth materials this world would look completly the same as the things you have rendered. We were born into an imperfect world so when we see something too perfect we perceive it as not very real. So give your renderings bumps, color variations, variable glosiness and all the stuff that represents the stuff we see everyday. Then our brain will definitely describe it as more real

Thanks for advice
The thing is - the longest time the renderings took - 9h per image in 1600x1200. (i mean interiors)
Personally, i am not a perfectionist, i just have to be, or i will not get money.
I am just starting - had only two customers yet, with one of them i am working regulary now, so it is not wise for me to argue a lot about the images. The first thing i am going to argue about is rendering cost
It really bothers me more now.
One more thing is that adding imperfections takes more time than producing a perfect image - which i sometime just don't have.

[w i l l]

Yes I have just started out too. I don't think that Maxwell is good for low cost quick and generic renders. It's better for high end real world perfection and with this potentially you can charge more for the job... I think Maxwell renders have more of a feel of realism than renders from any other software so use this to your advantage. For quick stuff, I just use the renderer that comes with my modelling software as I know this inside out and render times are 10 minutes and less.

[Boris Ulzibat]

Yes I have just started out too. I don't think that Maxwell is good for low cost quick and generic renders. It's better for high end real world perfection and with this potentially you can charge more for the job... I think Maxwell renders have more of a feel of realism than renders from any other software so use this to your advantage. For quick stuff, I just use the renderer that comes with my modelling software as I know this inside out and render times are 10 minutes and less.

Maxwell is good for speed too, because it has highly consistent and predictable results - hence - less time for tweaking and stuff.
I am still waiting for FR for mac to become available, then i'll maybe use it, though it is not too fast too. In realistic scenes.

Which rendered do you use with this speed? If it if OK to discuss it here...

[w i l l]

Its not that quick though because if you want a scene to look perfect and true to life you need to do a lot of tweeking, adding imperfections etc. It's hard to know this off the top of your head so it involves a lot of trial and error and previews, which take time. Tweeking is infinite.

I use Solidworks for modelling and Photoworks for rendering. Most people hate Photoworks but they are developing it really quickly and i've used it so much that I can predict what every tiny change in setting will do now. Designers/Engineers who use it don't really use HDRI's.... this is the key to good/reasonably real renders using that software. Solidworks wasn't designed for rendering though, so I wouldn't consider using that for rendering, particularly Architectural stuff, its just good enough to knock up images for Engineers.

[Boris Ulzibat]

Its not that quick though because if you want a scene to look perfect and true to life you need to do a lot of tweeking, adding imperfections etc. It's hard to know this off the top of your head so it involves a lot of trial and error and previews, which take time. Tweeking is infinite.

I use Solidworks for modelling and Photoworks for rendering. Most people hate Photoworks but they are developing it really quickly and i've used it so much that I can predict what every tiny change in setting will do now. Designers/Engineers who use it don't really use HDRI's.... this is the key to good/reasonably real renders using that software. Solidworks wasn't designed for rendering though, so I wouldn't consider using that for rendering, particularly Architectural stuff, its just good enough to knock up images for Engineers.

Well, but adding imperfections to make more real look is already a higher level of job, longer terms, higher pay. For "flat", evenly lighted scenes, maxwell is rather fast to work with.

[tokiop]

Boris, your interiors look great, very clean visualisations! I guess architects don't bother with worn textures and milimeter modeling, small chamfrains everywhere! Maxwell has a lot of different uses and thats good!

[Boris Ulzibat]

Boris, your interiors look great, very clean visualisations! I guess architects don't bother with worn textures and milimeter modeling, small chamfrains everywhere! Maxwell has a lot of different uses and thats good!

I've seen a good thread about that on some forum - don't remember where... The conclusion was "First you create a perfectly photoreal interior, with signs of imperfections, dirt, dust, fingerprints and so on, and then you try to tell the client that this is how his perfectly-clean-in-the-beginning flat or office or cafe will look after a year!"
Yes! Maxwell is very versatile tool, and the tool that is easier to work with is better tool for me!

[Frances]

Boris, your interiors look great, very clean visualisations! I guess architects don't bother with worn textures and milimeter modeling, small chamfrains everywhere! Maxwell has a lot of different uses and thats good!

I've seen a good thread about that on some forum - don't remember where... The conclusion was "First you create a perfectly photoreal interior, with signs of imperfections, dirt, dust, fingerprints and so on, and then you try to tell the client that this is how his perfectly-clean-in-the-beginning flat or office or cafe will look after a year!"
Yes! Maxwell is very versatile tool, and the tool that is easier to work with is better tool for me!

Good art does not necessarily make good visualization. The same is true for the opposite. That is why I've often heard people here say how boring arch viz is. There is a very discernable difference between CG art and design visualization. CGI for games is a totally different genre from viz. CG vfx is another entirely different thing.

When a client is looking at a viz of their design, they are not inspecting it for realism. They are looking for an accurate interpretation of their design. However, a well-produced visualization will look realistic aside from the requirements of the client. The client is not looking at a render. The client is expecting to see their design.

The things that contribute to an image's realism are also the things that are paramount in interpreting a design - properly created models (chamfering edges is a requirement - not an option!), quality textures, correct lighting simulation, and a good camera view. A well-lit poorly-executed model is just as bad as poorly-lit good model. A rendered texture that is not seamless, or does not resemble or represent the provided physical sample is a failure. A camera that makes the entire scene look awkward or distorted may be interpreted as good art, but doesn't necessarily make for good design viz. But if the client says, "Hey! Can we tilt the camera? Make it look kinda crazy?" Tilt the damn camera.

Once you have good models, good textures, good lighting, and good camera work, you still should introduce small elements of randomness into the scene to keep it from looking static. Chairs and accessories should not be lined up like soldiers. Show thought and care in the placement of everything in the scene and maybe - just maybe - even your peers will be impressed.

[w i l l]

properly created models (chamfering edges is a requirement - not an option!),

This is why I don't like rendering products that aren't mine. Had this problem last week.