Thank you, Dominique! It's an honor to include Artefactory Lab in the list. Your attention to detail and unique approach to visualization have been a huge inspiration for me.
Hey Oliver, do you know how those last ones achieve such realism? I wanna learn how to achieve results like that but I don’t know where the learn all that!
That’s a great question! There’s a lot that goes into achieving that level of realism, so I’ll mention some of the key points. First off, the workflow used by these top studios is completely different from what you’d find in a typical architectural practice. They use more advanced software like 3Ds Max with Corona or Vray, Cinema 4D, or Blender with Cycles, which allows for much more control and technical precision compared to faster, architect-friendly engines like D5, Lumion, or Enscape. That also means it’s a much more time-consuming process. Creating images like that can take many many hours of work across multiple stages of visualization. Each step (even starting from documentation of the site, modeling, and so on...) is super detailed, which is why these studios often have specialized artists for different parts of the process. One of the most important factors is that they study real-world photography and understand how light, materials, and imperfections behave in reality. They are more focused on learning from reality and the real world. And when I mentioned in the video that these studios can achieve these results with any software, it's because their trained eyes can spot what makes an image truly convincing, it’s all about the subtle imperfections that make things feel real. If you're looking to learn more about this "pure realism" results, I’d recommend going outside only the architectural visualization niche, and checking out TH-cam channels that talk about CGI as a whole. For example, a channel like Blender Guru is a great start. He has videos breaking down what makes images photorealistic, and once you dive into that rabbit hole, eventually stumbling on other channels, you'll find a ton of resources and tutorials. Now, if you decide to go full CGI, then it's a lot more work! But if we're talking about mixing actual photos with renderings, like Brick Visual, Engram, and others, they often blend their renders with actual site photography in Photoshop to boost realism, which can be “easier” than creating everything from scratch with full CGI. I probably just brushed over this topic, but I hope this gives you a better sense of the process! Remember, there’s often a whole team behind these images and years (or even decades) spent perfecting this 'realism' workflow. Overall, it’s all about the imperfections. The real world isn’t perfect, and render engines often give us pixel-perfect, too-straight, and overly clean images that make it obvious they’re computer-generated
Aqui no Brasil também tem o Oficina3D, Neorama, Kaaza, entre outros bons! Gosto bastante das maquetes eletrônicas do arquiteto sul-coreano, Saul Kim! Acho bem objetiva e abstrata, o branco e preto combinam incrivelmente bem para seus projetos experimentais!
@@brunobordini7696 boas referencias, Bruno! Obrigado por compartilhar. Vou dar uma pesquisada nos outros tbm. Sinto que o Oficina 3D é um pouco comercial demais pro meu gosto, mas com certeza valeria ser mencionado!
@@LearnUpstairs Ah sim! O OF3D é totalmente comercial! O Ander já falava sobre isso, ele quer atender o mercado imobiliário! Os outros 3 que citei são as mesmas coisas, você teria que encaixa-las numa quarta categoria!
@LearnUpstairs I wonder how long it takes studios like Brick to make their visualizations? I've heard that good studios can do a rendering in about a week, I wonder if that's true? I also wonder how long it takes for studios like Brick.
Good question! I'm curious about that too. But I think it varies from project to project and depends on the complexity of the images. In any case, I don't believe it's a straightforward process where the client asks for the image, a week later there's the realistic finalized result. It's more of a process with multiple stages and checkpoints to ensure that the images are delivering what is needed... especially because it's often a relation between architects and visualizers, which than dealing with a typical layman client.
Gosto muito do vigliecca e associados. Se não me engano é um arquiteto argentino que atua no Brasil. me inspiro bastante nas representações dele mas também gosto muito do “olhar” projetual do escritório
Oh, man! That’s a huge mistake on my part. Thankfully, you guys can help add input here. Hayes Davidson absolutely should have been mentioned given their huge importance. It slipped my mind because they’re not a reference I turn to too often, and believe it or not, none of the suggestions mentioned them either. Thanks again for pointing it out!
I always feel these matriculate renders are more for showcase than design. They help the artists more than the designers. They cost so much and take time you don't do it while designing. I applaud these studios for their business practice but find it hard to be inspired by them. They're an AD agency. For architectural design you need more technical and building focus renders. Less show mure substance. That's what I'm focused on.
@@avicohen2k oh you’re totally right! They are artists, not architects. That’s why I always try to mention the stuff that I did at the end of the video every time I talk about references like these. It’s completely different visualizing as architects during concept and design stages. The images need to be more “direct”, right? Showcase more of the building details than just the atmosphere and mood. But I still believe we can learn from these archviz studios as well. It could be one image that has a different camera angle, or shows more of the context and the building back there in the composition, or even one that tells more the story of how the building will look in a different weather. What I’m saying is that just as architects can learn from architectural photographers on how to better frame our renderings, we can also learn from these high-end archviz studios. I hope that makes sense! That’s my point of view at least, but I do agree with you 😄
I disagree. This These add to the projects and its more geared to clients. It shows what the project an be. A regular visual rendering shows pure architecture these visuals go much further. evevn if its made up.
Thanks!!! Great idea, I should've done that, and I actually thought about it, but most of these studios work globally and often have an international team, so where they're based sometimes doesn't have that much relevance.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for mentioning us. We're delighted to be on this list with such talented studios.
Thank you, Dominique! It's an honor to include Artefactory Lab in the list. Your attention to detail and unique approach to visualization have been a huge inspiration for me.
Khaliq here, was featured in the unreal engine comparison video, Thanks for all you do Oliver
Thank you for sharing this with us, i'm going to search each one of them...
Great list! Definitely going to save it for my next projects
These truly add emotion to arcitecture Im truly amazed. Thank you much
I know, right? And all these studios are so unique as well. Thanks for the feedback!
Can you make us a video about the studio that has a good presentation/diagram style. I only know BIG Architect for now. Pleasee:)
@@loiskrista9154 great idea! I’ll add to my list. Thanks for the suggestion 🙏
@@LearnUpstairsthankyou very much🤩
Thank you very much.
Love this summary! Obrigado
Great visual art
Studio SBM, the only visualization studio you need to know!
Great suggestion! They've got some fantastic visuals!
the baundary , kunkun visuals
Hey Oliver, do you know how those last ones achieve such realism? I wanna learn how to achieve results like that but I don’t know where the learn all that!
That’s a great question! There’s a lot that goes into achieving that level of realism, so I’ll mention some of the key points. First off, the workflow used by these top studios is completely different from what you’d find in a typical architectural practice. They use more advanced software like 3Ds Max with Corona or Vray, Cinema 4D, or Blender with Cycles, which allows for much more control and technical precision compared to faster, architect-friendly engines like D5, Lumion, or Enscape.
That also means it’s a much more time-consuming process. Creating images like that can take many many hours of work across multiple stages of visualization. Each step (even starting from documentation of the site, modeling, and so on...) is super detailed, which is why these studios often have specialized artists for different parts of the process.
One of the most important factors is that they study real-world photography and understand how light, materials, and imperfections behave in reality. They are more focused on learning from reality and the real world. And when I mentioned in the video that these studios can achieve these results with any software, it's because their trained eyes can spot what makes an image truly convincing, it’s all about the subtle imperfections that make things feel real.
If you're looking to learn more about this "pure realism" results, I’d recommend going outside only the architectural visualization niche, and checking out TH-cam channels that talk about CGI as a whole. For example, a channel like Blender Guru is a great start. He has videos breaking down what makes images photorealistic, and once you dive into that rabbit hole, eventually stumbling on other channels, you'll find a ton of resources and tutorials.
Now, if you decide to go full CGI, then it's a lot more work! But if we're talking about mixing actual photos with renderings, like Brick Visual, Engram, and others, they often blend their renders with actual site photography in Photoshop to boost realism, which can be “easier” than creating everything from scratch with full CGI.
I probably just brushed over this topic, but I hope this gives you a better sense of the process! Remember, there’s often a whole team behind these images and years (or even decades) spent perfecting this 'realism' workflow. Overall, it’s all about the imperfections. The real world isn’t perfect, and render engines often give us pixel-perfect, too-straight, and overly clean images that make it obvious they’re computer-generated
@@LearnUpstairs thank you so much for the detailed answer, i'll look into it!
Thanks man!
Well done😊
Aqui no Brasil também tem o Oficina3D, Neorama, Kaaza, entre outros bons! Gosto bastante das maquetes eletrônicas do arquiteto sul-coreano, Saul Kim! Acho bem objetiva e abstrata, o branco e preto combinam incrivelmente bem para seus projetos experimentais!
@@brunobordini7696 boas referencias, Bruno! Obrigado por compartilhar. Vou dar uma pesquisada nos outros tbm. Sinto que o Oficina 3D é um pouco comercial demais pro meu gosto, mas com certeza valeria ser mencionado!
@@LearnUpstairs Ah sim! O OF3D é totalmente comercial! O Ander já falava sobre isso, ele quer atender o mercado imobiliário! Os outros 3 que citei são as mesmas coisas, você teria que encaixa-las numa quarta categoria!
muito obrigado!
@LearnUpstairs I wonder how long it takes studios like Brick to make their visualizations? I've heard that good studios can do a rendering in about a week, I wonder if that's true? I also wonder how long it takes for studios like Brick.
Good question! I'm curious about that too. But I think it varies from project to project and depends on the complexity of the images. In any case, I don't believe it's a straightforward process where the client asks for the image, a week later there's the realistic finalized result. It's more of a process with multiple stages and checkpoints to ensure that the images are delivering what is needed... especially because it's often a relation between architects and visualizers, which than dealing with a typical layman client.
thank you🎉
Gosto muito do vigliecca e associados. Se não me engano é um arquiteto argentino que atua no Brasil. me inspiro bastante nas representações dele mas também gosto muito do “olhar” projetual do escritório
@@lauraoliarif.3135 boa referência! Não conhecia, com certeza vou aproveitar pra olhar eles com mais calma. Obrigado por compartilhar, Laura!
Sad you didnt mention hayes davidson, the pioneers of arch viz!
Oh, man! That’s a huge mistake on my part. Thankfully, you guys can help add input here. Hayes Davidson absolutely should have been mentioned given their huge importance. It slipped my mind because they’re not a reference I turn to too often, and believe it or not, none of the suggestions mentioned them either. Thanks again for pointing it out!
I always feel these matriculate renders are more for showcase than design. They help the artists more than the designers.
They cost so much and take time you don't do it while designing. I applaud these studios for their business practice but find it hard to be inspired by them. They're an AD agency.
For architectural design you need more technical and building focus renders. Less show mure substance. That's what I'm focused on.
@@avicohen2k oh you’re totally right! They are artists, not architects. That’s why I always try to mention the stuff that I did at the end of the video every time I talk about references like these.
It’s completely different visualizing as architects during concept and design stages. The images need to be more “direct”, right? Showcase more of the building details than just the atmosphere and mood.
But I still believe we can learn from these archviz studios as well. It could be one image that has a different camera angle, or shows more of the context and the building back there in the composition, or even one that tells more the story of how the building will look in a different weather. What I’m saying is that just as architects can learn from architectural photographers on how to better frame our renderings, we can also learn from these high-end archviz studios.
I hope that makes sense! That’s my point of view at least, but I do agree with you 😄
I disagree. This These add to the projects and its more geared to clients. It shows what the project an be. A regular visual rendering shows pure architecture these visuals go much further. evevn if its made up.
Two
What about NON-photo real examples?
internoesterno 🎉
They've got amazing work! 🙌
😍❤🔥
Sentir Visual is a good Studio!
Tres
dayum i'm fourth
Vivid vision??
OMG IM FIRST
🙌🙌
THANK YOU so much for sharing! 😎👍🏼
Phenomenal compilation + explanation of each.🫡
PS - small suggestion… mentioning where they’re located
Thanks!!! Great idea, I should've done that, and I actually thought about it, but most of these studios work globally and often have an international team, so where they're based sometimes doesn't have that much relevance.
@@LearnUpstairs maybe subtitles …? Or in the “footer”…? Just a thought