[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



can someone give me (or direct me) to realistic camera angles,realistic fov's and realistic resolutions? seems like its an important thing i never got to learn
>>
>>579581
I love making real world things unrealistic by shooting them at weird angles. Really makes them feel like they are just 3D models. And when I shoot with the widest FOV, I'm able to literally defy the laws of the physics and stuff suddenly gets super unrealistic. Because what makes them realistic is not a combination of their dimensions, textures and lighting, but their position in a 3D space. One time I photographed my gf from her left side and her skin literally turned to an aluminium and her hair looked like plastic.
>>
>>579585
comeone man, cut me some slack

some arcvhiz guy said i need refs for realistic camera. i was wondering what he said
>>
>>579591
Photographer here. It means to use settings that would have been appropriate had you photographed the place in real life.
If your software has physical camera settings, just reference actual photography and use similar parameters. For example, typical lens focal lengths are 24, 35, 50, 85, 100mm, etc. so when selecting an AoV you may want to pick one that fits a standard within the lens world.
The aspect ratio of most digital cameras is 2:3, but most photographers end up cropping their images anyway, so you don't have to keep to that standard, just remember that with a 1:1 ratio a 35mm camera would now have a film gate of 24x24mm, but if you render at 1:1 and keep size at 36mm, you're actually rendering a 36x36mm frame.
Aperture settings typically range from f/1.4~f/16, with most photos generally being shot in a narrower range between f/2 and f/8. In actual photography it's a trade-off between having everything in your scene sharp (something that comes inherently in CG) vs. having enough light to capture the scene (which you also have unlimited amounts of).
Since the question here is about architecture, most photographers use any means to capture as much depth of field as possible before diffraction kicks in, so a working aperture of about f/11 for most cameras.
Focal length is mostly a personal choice, but generally you want something in the range of 14, 17, 20, 24mm since in actual arch you're basically selling the house on how spacious it is, even if it means using wide lenses to make the interior seem cavernous when it's a closet.
Same goes for picking camera angles, you want to stay mostly realistic by placing the camera within a range of angles that a person could actually make use of, but not much is really off the table in arch photography, you end up sticking the camera right up against walls and extending the tripod way up high just to get the perfect angle.
(cont.)
>>
>>579581
buy a non-shitty textbook on photographing, better one from black and white era cause it probably has chapters about setting up lighting
>>
>>579601
If your camera settings have tilt and shift parameters, it really pays to use them for professional-looking results, but it's a bit of a complicated topic so I'd suggest just searching online for how TS lenses are used. TS lenses come in 17, 24, 45 and 90mm flavors for your standard SLR, or perhaps 32 and 40mm if you're emulating a medium format view camera. For medium format, remember to set film size to 54x40mm (4:3 aspect) so that your AoV is correct.
For resolution it's again your preference, and honestly, what your system can handle in a reasonable amount of time. Since it's possible in CG to render true-color images with perfect luminance (cameras can only capture at a reduced color accuracy because of the way digital sensors work), you can generally get away with even half the resolution a similar photo would need to look as good. Most modern cameras shoot at resolutions of around 6000x4000 or even more, but you can safely stick to around 4K.
>>
>>579581
>camera angles
Average eye height, 5'5 in
>realistic FOV
Anything from 35 to 50 degrees (human eye "FOV" is around 45 deg but going lower works too)
>realistic resolutions
Do you mean aspect ratio? If so 4:3 to 16:9 covers most of the regular range, you've also got superwide formats, but you should be doing whatever supports your scene best. For resolution go for however many pixels you can fit without slowing your machine too much (1x or 2x screen resolution is usually good), by the time you get good enough to worry about specific resolution values your client will probably be giving them to you.


These are rough estimates of what would be considered "regular", keep in mind you should feel free to deviate from them if you're looking to achieve specific artistic effects.
>>
>>579601
Also this post is really great.
>>
>>579601
>>579604

oh jesus thank you mister.

i actually have some camera profiles in blender that i never use, maybe its time to put them to work/ tweaks some stuff

>>579608
this is good too, thank you
>>
>>579581
>realistic fov's
human fov for first person view is 17.77mm
exactly 17.77mm
>>
>>579613
So after that info dump yesterday night, I woke up and realized I haven't actually said anything about how to apply those concepts, so here goes.

Having a wide field of view is just as much a compositional tool as it is about "getting it all in", because strange things start happening below 35mm. The 35mm focal length on a 35mm camera is generally considered the point at which wide angle distortion doesn't quite have an effect yet, while 24mm is already distinctly wide with some distortion. Wide-angle distortion is inherent to the process of projecting a spherical image onto a flat plane, but it can also be used to your advantage to enhance scale. Because when you start going wide, moving the camera even a little bit starts to greatly shift things around in the frame, especially when there's stuff near you. For a good wide-angle composition you want to keep dimensionality to your scene by having some near elements for scale or, more brazenly, actually move close to the subject to exaggerate its form, otherwise everything will just look tiny with no benefit. Conversely, it might be instead more appropriate to use a more centered, straight-on alignment and try to avoid having extraneous things in the corners of the frame, and use as long a focal length as you can get away with within the constraints of the space. Shooting the right composition means not always using the widest lens you have.
Shifting, as I've mentioned previously, is done either with a special lens or camera that can actually shift the lens perpendicular to the camera plane, which has the effect of moving the frame up/down/left/right even with the camera looking straight-on. This has the effect of keeping straight lines straight since your perspective doesn't change, and should always be used to some small degree, but also not overused, get to the point where you have straight lines and then back off a little, otherwise it just looks unnatural and over-done even if it's mathematically sound.
>>
>>579724
Now, while with exteriors you generally want to shift up to capture the whole building, with interiors it's quite a bit the opposite, because frankly people don't want to look at the ceiling most of the time, unless the space is some fancy regal design with chandeliers and shit. But people generally don't look up more than they look slightly downwards at things in front of them. In any case, the lesson here is that, if you can help it, keep your camera perfectly level at all times, and if not, use a higher angle looking down and rarely if ever a lower angle looking up - if you have to focus in on some aspect of the structure, keep that camera pointing flat.

So, I mentioned previously that resolution doesn't as matter as much in CG as in a photo, but that comes with the caveat that you provide enough samples to actually render a clean image. I own a medium format camera and let me tell you, when you shoot with all parameters set to their ideal amounts, the image comes out smooth as glass, so not only is there no hint of grain but I can pull the shadows up a few stops and still have a good result, and that's with an 8K resolution to boot. At the very least, try to get your image looking as clean as possible and then worry about resolution. Most arch photographs are more worried about getting a clean image and lots of dynamic range to capture the full range of tones from shadows to highlights, sometimes using HDR or exposure blending to help with that.

As a last touch, I've talked about apertures, but other than for being absolutely sure that all your parameters are spot on, it doesn't have a lot of weight outside of stylizing your image when it comes to arch and landscape, because again the ideal is to have everything sharp, but even so, you may consider throwing on the slightest amount of blur on very near or far elements just to break things up a bit and have them seem more organic, and even then only when you zoom it.
>>
Another photographer here. Without actually having to pick up a camera to learn, you should watch some basic videos on shutter speed, ISO, aperture, focal length etc. Then after you've absorbed some of that information, go on /p/ and look at the exif of photos. Figure out how their focal lengths and apertures and shutter speeds worked for those photos, and try to apply that knowledge to your 3D stuff.
>>
>>579733
Could you recommend some videos? It's hard to filter out bad ones when you're not into the stuff yourself.
>>
>>579734
Walls of text guy here; rather than videos I can recommend visiting cambridgeincolour.com, it has a full breakdown of the various aspects of photography on the technical level.

Getting good artistic direction for photography is much harder and honestly it's something you do have to be into yourself to be able to determine what's useful and what's not.
For the most part, it overlaps with basic art theory, just with the technicalities of having to make do with the physical constraints you have to work with, and how to optimally manipulate what little you can to make the most of your imagery. The best I can give you is to buy photography books of the type of work that you like and try to copy their style.

In the grand scheme of things, production photos that you see in arch magazines have a lot going under the hood that's far more than just coming in with a camera and snapping some pics, so if you ever feel like cheating by hiding an imaginary light source behind a counter top to get some better lighting, well guess what - photographers were already well ahead of you there before CG was even a thing. It all depends on how much money you have on hand for setting up your scene in an ideal manner, and let's not even get into Photoshop. There is never any shame in removing powerlines because people tend not to notice them. In 3D, this simplifies your work, because if the aim of photography is to remove anything that does not contribute to the final image, in 3D you can simply not add in that detail in the first place.
>>
>>579736
...actually, one quick trick I can teach you, that I myself learned from cinema and is a good start for beginners, is to focus on shooting diagonally across the room, because you automatically increase the space of the room by what feels like 50%, and of course you get even more dimensionality by shooting towards open spaces like windows, mirrors or passages leading elsewhere.
Shooting straight on gives things a more clinical and rigid look, which is of course a good pick for modern designs or singling out interesting aspects of the space, but even then I think you need to focus more on leading lines than structure, otherwise things will feel too monotonous.

The reason why I said not to shoot looking up is that changing angles also changes how people perceive the object being displayed, when you look down on something it seems smaller and less significant, while from below it seems large and imposing. For a space to feel inviting you generally don't want the latter, however it is a useful tool in portraiture when you want the person you're photographing to seem larger-than-life to the viewer, so almost all of cinema is shot with the camera about waist to chest-high to the actors (depending on distance) so that it looks at them straight-on or even very slightly up. I think this is becoming something of a pattern here, but unless you're specifically going for an unusual angle, it's generally preferable to keep your camera level all the time.
>>
>>579738
saved your stuff for future projects

https://pastebin.com/D9JBtM5j




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.