The 1st one is the best, then the 3rd and then 2nd. 1st shows a lot of context, has the greenery and the randomness of nature growth on the building, the colors work, the varying heights of trees and people give it a balanced interesting picture. 2nd is good but the whole picture has a yellow-green tint which makes the building project look quite old, like from the 70s. 3rd render is better but from far you dont see the greenery. It looks quite clinical and cold. Plus of course spending 90usd more. Great vid and experiment.
Use code "SURVIVING" when you check out Fiverr: rb.gy/r7tp9o Links to the Artists: Inerti Studio: rb.gy/igqhi5 Yohan Hashana: rb.gy/tvzw2g Billy render: rb.gy/us4skk
60 > 150 > 95. The things on the 65 rendering, is the sky a bit simple, with some cloud it could have been more attractive, the repetition of the greenery on the on the facade which receives the sun, and the camera angle could have been a little further back. Overall it's a better than the 2 other, even if the last one look's like a real picture, it doesn't highlight the project as well as the first rendering
After watching your video I understand why I am getting low sales on fiverr, people are literally working for peanuts, I would have never done the 65$ quality at that price
I’m curious, it’s always really hard for me to get my rendering to look that realistic, do you guys use additional tools like photoshop to make it look further realistic or it’s the software settings? Also any tips and how to create realistic and accurate site context
Photoshop is always used. I don't think you necessarily have to go for a realistic look, more atmospheric. What sets off the renders are mainly too harsh light (as you can see on the last two renderings of the video) people recognize soft shadows as more realistic. The second thing is the vegetation detailes: You need to buy good assets if you want the realistic look, or place them further in the composition. I like to do the thing the last artist did in the video, placing a tree branch hanging into the frame, but blurring it would have been better, because it is not a nice tree model. Also the 3d people models are always kinda meh. It is better to place them in photoshop, and kinda blur them, so it gives a sense of movement to the picture (that's also what the two renders lacked.)
I agree with the previous comment! also, realisim is not the only thing that makes a great image. Billy captured the nicest render in my opinion but it wasn't the most realitsic image. It had an atmosphere, a story. That is what ultimately sells a project
Hi good to see you, IMO the 1st one is so impressive. There are minor corrections that u mentions and other. But overall I would go 4 $60 one. Those 2 renders r on imported level😂 0 improvement. BTW nice project😊
Masha Allah 4 u progress. And This world doesn't deserve to sacrifice what we have. I would go for $60 one and for 🧕 one😊 both the 1st one r beautiful.
That makes this study even more interesting. Three different Archviz approaches. Might be worth adding to the video description. @@SurvivingArchitecture
@@SurvivingArchitecture the modeling, beacause there is too much details outside and even inside. I am asking because I just started in sketchup so I was wondering how does it take to finish such a huge project. Thanks for your answer
Hmm it depends really but I would say a week to finalise the model (if things go well ofc lol) because we usually design with 3D models and that would take a couple of weeks/months. If I am modelling just for a video, it'll take 1 or 2 days
Thanks, very interesting, may be you could have presented the three images next to each other. There is merit in making a rendering for 60 dollars, but I'm afraid at this price of not being able to feed my children... the $60 image lacks contrast and relief, and the sky is a little pale... I quite like the luminous ambience of the second one. It's true that the sky in the third rendering can be seductive, but I find it all cold and not so realistic... the second rendering at 90 dollars is my favorite.
definitely the $65 rendering. better colour balance, contrast and dynamic as a conceptual rendering, the others are way too boring and commercial
I agree! I feel like it captures my project really well.
The 1st one is the best, then the 3rd and then 2nd.
1st shows a lot of context, has the greenery and the randomness of nature growth on the building, the colors work, the varying heights of trees and people give it a balanced interesting picture.
2nd is good but the whole picture has a yellow-green tint which makes the building project look quite old, like from the 70s.
3rd render is better but from far you dont see the greenery. It looks quite clinical and cold. Plus of course spending 90usd more.
Great vid and experiment.
Totally agree!
Use code "SURVIVING" when you check out Fiverr: rb.gy/r7tp9o
Links to the Artists:
Inerti Studio: rb.gy/igqhi5
Yohan Hashana: rb.gy/tvzw2g
Billy render: rb.gy/us4skk
the 65 dollar guy was the best. shows more
movement, drama..the other felt a little bland.
That's interesting! How did it show more movement?
60 > 150 > 95. The things on the 65 rendering, is the sky a bit simple, with some cloud it could have been more attractive, the repetition of the greenery on the on the facade which receives the sun, and the camera angle could have been a little further back. Overall it's a better than the 2 other, even if the last one look's like a real picture, it doesn't highlight the project as well as the first rendering
Totally agree!
Love this video! I really like Billy's render as you said
Thank you!
After watching your video I understand why I am getting low sales on fiverr, people are literally working for peanuts, I would have never done the 65$ quality at that price
I know, right! I would happily pay 200+ for that image
I’m curious, it’s always really hard for me to get my rendering to look that realistic, do you guys use additional tools like photoshop to make it look further realistic or it’s the software settings? Also any tips and how to create realistic and accurate site context
Photoshop is always used. I don't think you necessarily have to go for a realistic look, more atmospheric. What sets off the renders are mainly too harsh light (as you can see on the last two renderings of the video) people recognize soft shadows as more realistic. The second thing is the vegetation detailes: You need to buy good assets if you want the realistic look, or place them further in the composition. I like to do the thing the last artist did in the video, placing a tree branch hanging into the frame, but blurring it would have been better, because it is not a nice tree model. Also the 3d people models are always kinda meh. It is better to place them in photoshop, and kinda blur them, so it gives a sense of movement to the picture (that's also what the two renders lacked.)
I agree with the previous comment! also, realisim is not the only thing that makes a great image. Billy captured the nicest render in my opinion but it wasn't the most realitsic image. It had an atmosphere, a story. That is what ultimately sells a project
Hi, I accidently found this video. lol. I'm the $60 guy in the video. thank you for your review!
Hi good to see you, IMO the 1st one is so impressive. There are minor corrections that u mentions and other. But overall I would go 4 $60 one. Those 2 renders r on imported level😂 0 improvement.
BTW nice project😊
Masha Allah 4 u progress. And This world doesn't deserve to sacrifice what we have. I would go for $60 one and for 🧕 one😊 both the 1st one r beautiful.
Totally agree! Thank you for your comment
Do you know what program they each used for the rendering? I’ve been trying to guess, maybe the 150 one is from twinmotion
I think the 2nd one is probably D5 render because I recognise the assets. I can ask them if that would be helpful to you. Would you like that?
@@SurvivingArchitecturealso curious. Yes please!
So inerti studio: 3dsmax, corona, forest pack
Yohan: d5 render and corona
Billy: sketchup, enscape, photoshop
@@SurvivingArchitecturethank you!!
That makes this study even more interesting. Three different Archviz approaches. Might be worth adding to the video description. @@SurvivingArchitecture
How many time does it take you to finish this 3d project on sketchup please ?
Do you mean the modeling? or the rendering?
@@SurvivingArchitecture the modeling, beacause there is too much details outside and even inside. I am asking because I just started in sketchup so I was wondering how does it take to finish such a huge project. Thanks for your answer
Hmm it depends really but I would say a week to finalise the model (if things go well ofc lol) because we usually design with 3D models and that would take a couple of weeks/months. If I am modelling just for a video, it'll take 1 or 2 days
@@SurvivingArchitecture thank you ✨
Thanks, very interesting, may be you could have presented the three images next to each other. There is merit in making a rendering for 60 dollars, but I'm afraid at this price of not being able to feed my children...
the $60 image lacks contrast and relief, and the sky is a little pale... I quite like the luminous ambience of the second one.
It's true that the sky in the third rendering can be seductive, but I find it all cold and not so realistic... the second rendering at 90 dollars is my favorite.
All these renderings look amazinh. At these prices, are these some kind of sweatshops you are hiring?
Yes, they are quite affordable
How would you rank these artists?
-$60= 8 (Price and Quality) (Environment and movement a bit accomplished), -$95= 5 (five), -$150= 7
unsung hero's all day
Who?
Glad you are losing your religion, or any religion, more freedom.
I didn't lose it.
Just leave her alone
YEAH leabe islam@@SurvivingArchitecture
Person without Allah is an empty soul. And will live in sadness. You are devil for wanting people to lose religion.
@@shireenalb6080 religion is a brainwashing apparatus for those that want to understand things, but are too stupid and only want simple lies.
kind of sad about ur hijab
That's understandable