|
Forums >> Revit Building >> Technical Support >> Realistic Rendering
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Oct 17, 2004
2 Posts
No Rating |
I know there is a way to get really crisp realistic rendering but I can't seem to get past the cartoon-y rendering...does anyone know which settings need to be adjusted to achieve high quality rendering?
|
This user is offline |
|
 |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Dec 20, 2005
55 Posts
 |
You can change the DPI value on the top bar, I believe its next to "Go" (this option is avaible after you click the rendering tab. And then render, then after you can save the image, and then open it in PhotoShop, and edit it there.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Joined: Sun, Apr 23, 2006
265 Posts
 |
on "image size" on the rendering design bar you can set the DPI to even 600..
i don't know how high you can make it but the limit is high..
someone apparently knowlegeable said accurender can make
photo quality even better than viz render..
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Apr 25, 2004
1207 Posts
 |
Realistic rendering depend on a number of factors. Camera location, lighting, geometry, materials, plantings, people and skys all come into play.
The first place to start is at www.accustudio.com it is the source for Accurender information and materials. Dowload and installing their library will be a good start. Also take a look at their tutorials as most of what they talk about applies to the Accurender engine inside of Revit.
I use real sky backgrounds, RPC contnet from www.archvision.com and go through many test renderings to set everything up to my liking. It takes a bit of trial and error and you learn from experience.
Focusing on DPI settings is a false hope. The basic rule of thumb I use is to size my scene in Revit at about 25% larger than I will print it. Then most of my renderings are done at 150 - 200 dpi which is more than plenty if you have everything else set up correctly.
HTH
Tom
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Feb 23, 2005
35 Posts
|
I'd like to second what tomdinmn said about dpi - anything above 300dpi is quite simply a waste of time - I hardly go beyond 150, and provided you've played around with lighting and got the textures/materials about right, it should look pretty good.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Oct 17, 2004
2 Posts
No Rating |
Thank you so much for the info... I have been out to Accustudio and have downloaded the libraries. My current obstacle is the format of the extracted files, none of which read as applications. I am getting blank txt files. The initial zip file seems a bit slim at about 96K....hmmm. I would think a material library would take at minimum of a few MG. Is there a base download for which you continually update and these may be the upgrades? I would appreciate any ideas/thoughts/input. Thanks!
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, Apr 10, 2006
59 Posts
 |
well i can say this was my first time using revit and actually my 1st big project at school. I can say that i recieved high marks due to not just my design but realistic renderings. I had absolutly no experience and taught myself with the help of revit chat room and helpful revit city members. I used raytrace quite a lot because some materials just look bad so i played with many different materials although i didnt go into to much depth as time was a factor. I recieved comments on my project that the presentation was excellent. I will attach a few renders and also some other attachments just to show what i did with revit and id used it for no longer than 2-3 months. There were many other aspects of my project i could have improved and also i would have loved to have tried lighting and night renders although time was a problem. Im still deciding whether to use ADT (Viz Render) or Revit this term for my new projects which are very important to me. So any opinions on these 2 programs like negatives and positives would be greatly appreciated.
Also many of these renders i reduced the quality so i could attach them and i never used photoshop
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, Apr 10, 2006
59 Posts
|
corner view has many improvements needed such as sky and the lady is floating a bit haha. easily fixed but had no time
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, Apr 10, 2006
59 Posts
|
another view of my building i did many others but dont want to spam the topic lmao. I mean i dont know how realistic your talking but when these are printed with my lazer jet printer they look really impressive. So i mean thats 2-3 months experience and time on a project that was really big. I must admit when getting towards the end of my project i needed to buy another gig of ram my pc started to slow down a lot. Any thoughts on viz and accurender would be greatly appreciated thanks. I wasnt just impressed with renders but also the presentation floor plans and site plans that came out really well also.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Oct 11, 2006
6 Posts
No Rating |
Hi All, First post so here goes... The company I work for design residential properties so good quality renderings are a must for sales. I find that the quality of your materials plays a great part in the final image, however try as I might I can't lose the cartoony feel. I tend to touch up the images in Photoshop before release which does help the image appearance. Any feedback would be welcome.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jan 20, 2007
6 Posts
No Rating |
As good as Revit is -- I don't think you can achieve what you are really after...when you see what others are doing with Strata, for example (see their gallery compared to the Revit). The problem I have - and I am new as well - is that Revit and Strata does not seem very compatible. I am playing around w/ a Revit 3ds Max combo...but have not figured out the nuances yet. Revit embeds textures I believe when tranfered to Max - and I have not figured out how to shed them quite yet. It is cool, however, because the Revit camera views are supported.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Jun 29, 2004
543 Posts
|
I'm sorry to butt in, but I think Revit is more than capable at creating high quality renderings. It's the same with any software, the end user needs to know how to use it to their advantage. While accurender doesn't seem to work all that well, check out the accurender site and see for yourself what can be accomplished. and if not, max/viz puts it to almost perfection. revit has trouble with rounded surfaces being smooth, but if you know how to use max, then there should be no problems at all.
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Oct 11, 2006
6 Posts
No Rating |
Strata does seem impressive but as I've never used it I can't really comment. I've seen the accurender gallery and it can create some really good images. It's such a shame the the version in Revit is pared down to the bare minimum with extremely poor documentation. Almost all of the advanced controls which really help the final output have been removed. This is most noticable when rendering interior scenes which are at best horrible. I know that this is done for simplicity and ease of use but when you have reached the limits of it's capabilities you have nowhere to go apart from Max or Viz as Revit does not communicate very well with 3rd party apps. One of the main problems is that people buy Revit as a one stop shop, expecting the same quality output as Max, but in really it's not the case. Autodesk could bundle viz with Revit, that would be a great solution and enhance Revit no end.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jan 20, 2007
6 Posts
No Rating |
As for integrating Revit w/ Max -- I am finding the learning curve quite steep! I would like to render to Photoshop layers...is the only reason I am evaluating Strata. I'm in day 7 of about 5 different 30 day trials. Revit is not a cheap program and add that to the cost of Max... Thus far in my Max/Revit attempts I can not seem to apply textures to Revit models -- I can not shed the embedded textures linked from the Revit/accurender material types I'm sure it is a complicated situation at Autodesk...but I can not understand why Revit and Max are not totally seemless. I am doing my best to pur thru documentation...but the Max manual is over 3,000 pages!
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Jun 29, 2004
543 Posts
|
[quote]Thus far in my Max/Revit attempts I can not seem to apply textures to Revit models[/quote] have you not used max before? you select a surface and apply a material to it. granted you need to know how the program works, but I assure you it is completely integrated. I have no idea on layers with photoshop and yes, it is one of the complaints that you need to purchase viz separately. I agree, it is alot of money. I hate to point you in a different direction because I think Revit is the best, but have you looked into rhino. I'm not 100% sure of everything, but I believe someone from autodesk broke off and bought rhino and is making it similar to revit but less money. just don't expect any interoperability with anyone using any autodesk products which is what, 90% of the cad software out there?
Edited on: Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 2:10:48 PM
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
Search
