Of all the objects in a rendering, people are the hardest to make convincing. That’s the result of thousands of years of evolution that has selected for our ability to recognize other humans, really, really well.  Probably to keep them off our turf, originally, but that’s just speculation on my part. I’m not an anthropologist.  Or a scientist of any sort. But anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out we’re really good at spotting when someone is a bit…off; much more so than we are with buildings, in fact.

Now, research has shown that where virtual people are concerned, as we traverse the spectrum from cartoon-like toward realism, our response moves from delight to revulsion, and back to delight as we behold real people.  In other words, we have an inbuilt, negative emotional reaction to depictions of humans that look almost, but not quite, human.

Obviously, this is important where populating your rendering is concerned. The last thing you want is for people to be repelled by your condo-citizens.  It’s bad for sales.  So it goes without saying that we put a lot of thought into when we use 2D photos of real people and when we insert 3D, mathematically generated model-people.

The former of these are just as they sound: they’re regular photographs of living, breathing people that we insert in the last stages of the rendering.  That is, they’re placed using Photoshop after the scene has been rendered.  They look photorealistic, because, well, they’re photographs.

Three-dimensional people, meanwhile, use geometry and texture maps just like the buildings in the rendering around them (click here to see their component parts).  If we rendered the same scene from a different angle we could show their backside—without making any additional adjustments! In short, they live in the scene with the buildings as opposed to be being placed as an additional layer in the finished image.

That last part sounds like a huge advantage, right? You might ask why bother painstakingly placing 2D photographs of people in the finished image when we’d have to do it all over again if we decide to re-render the scene at a different viewing angle? Not to mention the fact that matching the lighting conditions under which your 2D person was photographed to the finished scene can be tedious and difficult. Three-dimensional people are lit mathematically like the buildings around them and require no additional tweaking in this respect. They will automatically be lit the same and cast the same shadows as all other objects in the shared environment.

The problem is that 3D people take a really, really, really long time to model convincingly enough so that they get to the point where we don’t get “weirded out” by them.  Long enough that, practically speaking, there’s no budget large enough to achieve populating your rendering with completely photo-realistic 3D people.  Hair, for example, takes an astonishing amount of work to convince even the least observant among us that the person they’re looking at isn’t “fake”: rendering each individual strand takes crazy amounts of CPU power and time. So, if you’re ever managing a project with no deadline and no budget, this could be the way to go.

Mostly, we use 3D people in animations, since it would be close to impossible to do a fly through with moving 2D images: you would need a different photograph of every person in the scene for every frame!  When we do use 3D citizens in these cases, though, we usually “ghost” them so that all the viewer sees are moving silhouettes. This gives us the ability to populate your animation while avoiding problems associated with showcasing humans that people could spot as fakes and have that almost subconscious negative reaction to we talked about above.

So there you have it. Unless you’re looking for an interesting Valentine’s date, being 3-dimensional isn’t always a plus.

What Exactly is “Resolution” Anway?

It’s best to think of a digital image’s resolution as “resolution at a certain size.” This makes it much easier to relate to elements involved in defining an image’s properties.

Consider a stamp-sized image (see above), the dimensions of which are 1 inch by 1 inch.  If this image is at 300 DPI (dots per inch)* it means that it will be 300 pixels wide and 300 pixels high.  This will give us a total pixel count of 90,000 pixels (300 x 300). A megapixel is 1,000,000 pixels, so this 300 DPI image, as “high-resolution” as it is, has a fraction of the pixels that even the cheapest digital camera captures with each embarrassing picture it snaps at your office party.

Similarly, an 8 by 10 inch picture at 300 PPI will be 3000 pixels wide and 2400 pixels high; this will give us a total pixel count of 7.2 million pixels (7.2 megapixels).

What Resolution Do you Need for your Project?
When printing to paper, we should be asking ourselves how many total pixels we’ll need in order to fill a given physical paper size. Let’s see what this means given that our standard high-resolution file is 5000 pixels in the widest dimension.

In the magazine world, for instance, the standard resolution is 300 DPI.  Well, if your file is 5000 pixels by 5000 pixels (25 megapixels), at 300 DPI (meaning it takes 300 pixels to print an inch of the image) the maximum print out size will have physical dimensions of 16.67 by 16.67 inches (5000/300=16.67).

Meanwhile, a standard resolution for posters is 150 DPI, and at that resolution the same digital file can print a poster at 33.3 x 33.3 inches (5000/150=33.3). Moving on, you could print out a billboard ad just over 9¼ by 9¼ feet at 45 DPI, a perfectly acceptable resolution for this application.

Resizing
There are a couple ways to increase the size of an image (by which we mean increase the total number of pixels) so it will print to a larger area than the maximum defined above.

One is to increase  it through a “resampling” procedure in Photoshop.  This method uses various algorithms to best create new neighbouring pixels. We increase the size in 10% increments so as to minimize the amount of new information generated in each step, thereby resulting in less pixelation (a term denoting the point where individual pixels become visible) and a higher quality print. This method has proven to be just as effective as using custom resizing software.

The second is to produce a high quality print with continuous tone colour similar to photos developed on traditional photo paper. This print is in turn scanned at the desired final output resolution (ie. 12 feet wide at 45 DPI). The inks in the printing process blend together a bit at their edges, effectively creating new neighbouring pixels (as above) in a manner that also reduces pixelation.

The first resizing method is free, but, depending on how big your large-format target medium is, it can, in some instances, result in some pixelation. For billboards this isn’t an issue because the viewer isn’t standing close to the image; that is, when you’re 10 meters away from an image you simply won’t see a difference. On larger posters this is also more than adequate.

The latter procedure costs money, but might be the better choice for certain applications such as very large interior murals, since in such cases the viewer can be right next to the image.

Why 5000 pixels?
You might wonder why we chose 5000 pixels as our maximum dimension. There’s no single answer to this question, there being many factors at play.

For one, notice that doubling the height and width of an image results in a file with quadruple the amount of information; the image of the stamp above, if doubled to 600 pixels across, would contain four times as much information (360,000 pixels vs 90,000 pixels). A 25 megapixel image becomes a 100 megapixel image! Not only would this dramatically increase rendering times, but working with files of this size would tax even the most powerful workstations—and we’re already running computers with 16 processing cores!

Larger files means slower everything, including opening files, lighting, populating, and doing those final subtle tweaks that turn a good rendering into something stunning.  5000 pixels is a size that balances the needs of the majority of our clients with what can realistically be accomplished in the time frames of the average project.

What Does all this Mean?
For the vast majority of projects 5000 pixels should be more than enough to get you a crisp image sharp enough for just about every application. If you’ve got something else in mind let us know: we’ll be happy to help figure out the best way to get that rendering on the side of an airplane!

*For our purposes we will equate DPI to PPI (pixels per inch) in order to simplify the relationship between pixels and print as far as the concept of resolution is concerned.

Over a period of three days Kristine shot the office’s coffee breaks with a Canon 5D Mark II. Footage was then edited with Adobe Premiere Pro and some very simple audio editing was subsequently applied via Soundbooth. Of course, audio is always an issue when not using a boom, but making do with the internal microphone is part of the exercise.

It’s always interesting to see how defined narratives emerge from seemingly random footage.  What story did Kristine uncover? In the eternal dispute that is Tim Horton’s vs. Starbucks there is only one objective certainty that stands alone, above the petty, partisan bickering: raisin tea biscuits are delicious.

Spotted:
Designstor’s Abacus Lofts renderings in Toronto’s Now Magazine and The Grid

New year’s resolutions are a window into the image we all have of the sorts of people we’d like to be. The disjunction between these aspirations and the way we actually behave might be compared to the renderings we do here at the office: there’s the real world, and the much sexier, ersatz, condominium-poster-world with perfect weather and genetically flawless citizens.  As far as habits go, most of us can’t live up to condominium-poster-world.

Mind you, in no way am I maligning attempts at self-improvement.  I happen to be a big supporter of resolutions of all types, a condition which makes me naturally curious about the resolutions of my office mates.  Also, I’m nosy.

But I wanted to know the real aspirations of my colleagues, unvarnished by any sheepishness they might have stemming from having goals incongruent with past historical trends (sometimes cynically called “reality”).  To this end I set up a box where people could submit promises they made to themselves even though some of us had no need of anonymity.

Robyn has resolved to take up clove cigarettes.  This would probably be for the better if she were a smoker, but she isn’t.  I’m not sure what to think of this.

Rick has decided he wants to sign up for Facebook.  But one of his other resolutions was to “be more productive.”  I’ve watched people on facebook.  These two resolutions are not compatible.

Greg stopped by my desk to promise that he will henceforth re-fill the Brita filter after helping himself to the water.  This seems like a modest, achievable goal, so I’m interested as to whether he’ll be able to keep it up for 12 months. BTW, Greg, everybody now knows who was leaving the jug empty.

Jorge, meanwhile, resolved to take the stairs instead of the elevator, followed by the qualification that he’d start tomorrow. I will vouch for the fact that I saw him on the stairs today once already.

We had some anonymous entries too.  One of us was keen to make more of an effort to stay in touch with friends.  I’ve made this one before too, since I have certain misanthropic tendencies that mean I’m happiest at home in my pyjamas.

I also received a very long list from somebody that had some real beauties.  Among them my faves were “read those big books,” “write some letters” and one I make on a monthly basis: “make (not buy) my god damn lunch.”  But the highlight was the last one, if just for the emphasis (replicated here): “don’t buy ANYTHING.”

Some were very short, so they had an almost mantra like quality: “less coffee, more greens.”  You can almost picture yourself chanting that while sitting cross-legged on a carpet trying to achieve inner peace and perfect equanimity.

Don’t shy away from promises to be a better person: self-improvement has a noble tradition stretching all the way back to the Greek stoic school of philosophy. And if you have a track record of failing to fulfill your resolutions, try telling everyone around you what you’ve promised yourself; as unfashionable as it is nowadays, shame can be a powerful motivator.

We like doing stuff that’s neat! On some rare occasions, it’s not even our idea. For instance, take this before and after rendering comparison that started on the suggestion of Gary Switzer of MOD Developments, the people behind the fabulous new FIVE condominium development currently under construction at 5 St. Joseph Street.

Gary wanted to “winterize” a rendering for a holiday card. The original up top had been modeled without any intention of showcasing its winter appeal, but we let loose our workshop elves (Greg and Robert) to work their magic and a short while later they had effected a holiday miracle!

Mind you, the snow in this scene isn’t “painted on” with the brush tool: these winter effects are automagically created with custom scripts and materials. In other words, this is mathematically generated snow.

Interested in this festive alternative for your next project? Let us know!

The following phrase is the worst bad weather cliché that still finds current usage: “There’s no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing.” It’s fun and clever until some jerk says this to your face when you’re both lost in a blizzard because he wanted to test out his new budget GPS and it’s so cold  that your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then it just makes you want to punch him. Repeatedly.

Obviously there’s such a thing as bad weather. Yet, like many cute aphorisms, it contains too much wisdom to simply dismiss out of hand. Being properly dressed really does make all the difference in your enjoyment of the months when we’re tilted away from the sun. I’m confident that this will not come as a shock to most people raised north of Naples. For everyone else reading this, I say without reservation: winter is enjoyable, given the right sartorial choices.

If you’ve been transplanted from a warmer climate consider the following a public service announcement. For I would like to share a revelation that came to me (unfortunately) quite late in life. I can sum up this epiphany in one word: wool.

The winters of my childhood and youth were spent skiing.  Some outings at Mount Saint Anne in Quebec, as wonderful as that mountain is, had been in the misery that one can only experience wearing cotton socks in Quebec City’s -20C weather.  Sadly, my parents had never been turned on to the miracle that is wool.  In a word, wool is far, far warmer.  Okay, that’s more than one word, but it’s worth emphasizing.

It was my wife who insisted on wool socks for the winter months and I was instantly amazed at how toasty my feet were.  I could walk home from work, enjoying the crisp air without going through the agony of thawing my feet out when I arrived (yeah, you know the pain I’m talking about).  I was instantly addicted.  Wool underwear, wool long johns, wool sweaters, wool shirts–everything that you can buy in cotton is available in a warmer material.  What’s that? A car splashed you while you were walking by a puddle?  No problem!  Wool keeps you warm even when wet.

So forget all that space-age 21st century wonder fibre clothing they try to sell you at the camping outfitter’s store.  Tenzing and Hillary didn’t have any of that crap and they freaking climbed Mt. Everest.  And what were they wearing?  Wool.

The virtual world of imagined landscapes and urban environments tends to be somewhat monochromatic; people seem to all want the same Pleasantville weather in their renderings and that weather seldom deviates from summery, sunny days with deep blue skies and temperatures hovering right around 298 Kelvin.

This is unfortunate, because there’s a lot of beauty in autumn colours and the crisp, cool world of winter as evinced by the Christmas carols so many of us love to sing—especially that one about the righteous Czech king’s one night out. True, some of us hate singing carols, but those people are curmudgeons and on the whole there’s very little one can do to please them.

Anyway. Remember how Cobra Commander built the Weather Dominator in an effort to once and for all crush the governments of the world and generally terrorize the citizens of Earth? Well think of setting up an architectural visualization of your project as having your very own Weather Dominator, except without the exorbitant budget, total disregard for international law and lack of discernible motivation.

In this imagined environment the sky’s the limit (or not the limit, in this case): you can insert whatever weather you want! Sure, setting up a snowy winter night might not make sense if your development is in Florida, but where more northerly climes are depicted, what better way to feature that fully-functional gas fireplace around which your imaginary family gathers for mulled wine, eggnog and general revelry?

We’re not suggesting you go for a category 9 gale on your next exterior shot, but why not explore all the seasons occurring in nature? We’re eager to show you our wide assortment of virtual snowflakes.

I’ve learned two things from my first year involved with Movember. Moustaches grow quietly, but raising money is noisy work. That’s wisdom you can take to the bank.

Once again Peter has proved himself the master of fund raising.  His secret, which he divulged under no great duress, is to “send a lot of emails.”  It’s a tactic that’s worked: he managed to raise $1,425.00 all the while taking the time out to coach his under-achieving teammates on proper fund-raising techniques.

A sincere thank-you goes out to all who sent us money; Designstor participants raised a total of $1,905. It goes without saying that I will not continue in my role as team captain next year; while no slouch in the leadership department, my captaining qualities are but a pale imitation of Peter’s formidable Movember talents.

He grows a mean trucker, too.

Being right at the center of everything, 210 Simcoe is perfect for those enamoured of city life but who still want a home that’s sheltered from the chaos of city living. We think this video successfully emphasizes the bustle of downtown urban life without making the surroundings appear too frenetic.