The Difference Between A Great 3D Visual and Not So Great
In every type of business, whether it’s a service provider, or an actual product, there’s always a varying degree of standards available. When I say ‘standards’ I mean quality.
And 3D Visualisation is no different.
This blog post is going to tackle my recent experiences when it comes to managing client expectation. And more specifically, why my photo-real 3D visuals don’t cost the same as 3D visuals produced, using lesser quality 3D software and processes. This isn’t always an easy topic to address but I feel it is a supremely important one and deserves a little bit of my time.
Here is what I consider to be a ‘not so great’ 3D visual of a kitchen design. This 3D visual was most likely created using ‘drag and drop’ functionality, from a software application specifically designed to produce 3D visuals of kitchen design schemes.
The process required to produce this 3D visual includes selecting pre-built cabinets, appliances and fittings. Which also includes the ability to add (shockingly bad) interior lighting. This 3D visual is most likely included as a ‘free’ option for customers wishing to purchase a kitchen, or is perhaps used as part of a ‘free’ consultation, to try and influence a sale. And it probably took 30 mins to produce.
This is a pretty good example of a substandard 3D visual and here’s why.
And here’s a photo-real 3D visual, produced by yours truly, which was constructed using cutting edge 3D software, and to the exacting requirements of the client. It is a truly bespoke 3D solution, that uses real world dimensions, materials and lighting. It is a highly accurate and realistic depiction of an Interior Designer’s concept and is given the term ‘photo-real’ due to its ridiculously high level of realism. It took approx. 3 days to create.
Let’s look at these two very different, computer generated images side-by-side (please click to view actual image size).
These varying standards aren’t limited to residential interiors. Here’s what I consider to be a substandard 3D visual of a wedding reception design.
And here’s a photo-real image of a wedding ceremony design created by myself.
Both examples look very different, right? That’s because of three things:
- the skill and expertise of the 3D Visualiser;
- the superior 3D software used, and
- the time, effort and attention to detail incorporated.
If I’ve done my job correctly, my photo-real 3D visual will prompt an emotional response from the end consumer (my client’s client). And because I take pride in my work, and care about the level of service I provide, I ask my clients to let me know how their client reacted when presented with the final photo-real 3D visual. The reactions have included tears, hanging the photo-real 3D visual on a wall (true story!), audible gasps and sheer joy.
Here’s an interesting question: how many times do you think the poorer quality 3D visuals above prompted an emotional response from the end consumer?
The main objective of photo-real 3D Visualisation is to help a Designer accurately communicate his/her design concept to a client, to the extent that the client can imagine standing in the newly designed space. Which of the above 3D visuals do you think a client could imagine standing in?
It’s precisely for all of the above reasons, why my photo-real 3D visuals aren’t priced in a similar bracket as the ‘not so great’ ones.
However, I have introduced a three tiered pricing system, to ensure that I meet the varying budgets and requirements of my clients, without compromising on quality! Read more about my tiered pricing system here.
If, as a Designer, you want to secure a commission and ensure that your design concept is being conveyed accurately, to fully engage your client, my photo-real 3D visuals will deliver.
Do your designs justice, present your vision for a space or interior using only the highest quality 3D visuals.
I love hearing from my readers and followers. If you enjoyed this post, or have a point you’d like to raise, please feel free to leave a comment below.