3D Architectural Film Versus 3D Fly Through…. Is there a difference?
by Paul Odett on 03/30/10 at 12:02 pm
When a new client is referred to focus 360 and wants to commission us to create a new project video to market a development, my first thought is that’s great, and then I immediately move to thinking about what type of video they have in mind for their project.
Like in Hollywood, there are block buster pictures and small independent films, and a number of levels in between. You must determine early on what the client’s vision for the project is and the general budget that has been allocated for this effort. From there you can begin to collaborate on the best approach from the stand point of producing an architectural film or a 3D fly through.
With terms like animation, fly through video, architectural video, 3D film and so on, it is important to make sure that although there are interchangeable buzzwords and acronyms in our industry for the services we provide, there is still always a need to continue the education process with the client at the outset to ensure the expectations are clear as far as what the video should be and ultimately what results it should yield.
A simple fly through video to me, means creating a community tour from both a ground and aerial view perspective, which would basically introduce the overall project plan and design details of the site, building and hardscape. The fly through video would of course touch on key features of the project, while not committing to elevated levels of photo realism, creativity and special effects.
On the flip side, an architectural film to me signifies an opportunity to craft a narrative and develop a storyline that drives a message and makes an emotional connection with the audience. Using green screen video people for scale and context, along with developing an interesting camera plan to highlight unique spaces and architectural details could really add to the storyline. Add to that some special effects and you have developed a dynamic and compelling film about a real estate project that everyone will want to be a part of.
Either way, my thought was to raise this topic so the next time you collaborate with your client to develop some sort of 3D animation video, you will want to remember that there are all kinds of movies that can be made and your client may not know the difference between an architectural film and a 3D fly through, if there is even a difference at the end of the day.
3D Fly Through Example (aka Value Line)
3D Architectural Film Example
John Slowsky
Mar 30th, 2010
I would argue that to make a compelling architectural presentation that ‘sells’ needs to strum enough emotional triggers to ignite a call-to-action from the viewer. Similar to the same path that the automobile or aviation industry has embraced to sell their products. These are story driven, sophisticated marketing targeted films. They are always ‘targeted’ to a precise audience and rely on branding to stand out from their competitors. In so doing, a film such as these are structured with the same disciplines that have proven successful over the last 50 years. These films include a story arc (beginning, middle and end), accompanied by a musical score reflecting the same story arc (50% what you see is heard), cinematic camera with correct use of the lens along with theatrical movement and finally, temperature; the use of filters for consistency and emotional attachment.
I would say that both of your examples represented here are the same, an architecture walk through albeit the latter to be a more expensive version but still a walk through in nature. In a walk through you can move the camera in any direction without relying on the language of the camera to tell the story which is taught at film schools.
In most architecture walk through I’ve noticed, the camera usually uses the same lens, moves at a consistent speed and appears making effort to show everything constructed regardless of its importance to trigger a call-to-action. I feel this type of presentation will be replaced by the more sophisticated architectural commercial in the near future (if we ever get out of this financial funk).
My 2 cents.
John Slowsky
Mar 30th, 2010
PS. Thanks Paul for making the effort to write and construct this blog, well done.
Paul M
Mar 31st, 2010
Great explanation Paul. I have to admit I was confused myself. This illustrates the difference perfectly. To clarify however, a fly-through can be more complex than the simple Value Line example, correct? If budget allows, you can animate the people interacting within the fly-through correct?
Paul Odett
Apr 1st, 2010
Thanks for the feedback John. Certainly you have the experience and creativity to think big and I agree that there are similarities between the fly through and architectural firm, as both approaches do primarily show architectural features and spaces. In terms of developing an emotionally engaging, broadcast quality commercial to blow people away, well that is always the opportunity we look for. Yet it seems over the last few years and especially now, the budgets outlined for new project presentations are scaled back to only allow for what is absolutely necessary to sell the vision for a new project.
I too look forward to a healthier economy soon and perhaps the chance to do projects that are exactly like you described.
Thanks for your insight John.
Paul Odett
Apr 1st, 2010
Yes, Paul that is true. You can elevate the level of the fly through/architectural film by adding green screen people or animating computer generated people, where as with the value line, which is even a more simplistic version of the fly through we don’t include moving people and that allows us to keep some of the cost down when our clients do not need the more expensive fly through/architectural film.