Peterson - Ty - Spring 2012

Architectural Rendering I Fundamental Principles of Digital Image
Representation
Ty Daniel Peterson
May 2012
Submitted towards the fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of

Architecture Degree.
University of Hawai ❛i at Manoa

School of Architecture
Doctorate Project Committee

Hyoung-June Park I Chairperson
Stephen Grant Green
William Paluch
Architectural Rendering I Fundamental Principles of Digital Image
Representation
Ty Daniel Peterson
May 2012
We certify that we have read this Doctorate Project and that, in our opinion, it is
satisfactory in scope and quality in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of
Architecture in the School of Architecture, University of Hawai ❛i at Manoa.
Doctorate Project Committee
Hyoung-June Park I Chairperson
Stephen Grant Green
William Paluch
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………….… v
Chapter 01 Introduction………………………………………………………………….… 1
1.1 Architectural Rendering 1

1.2 Hypothesis 5
1.3 Document Outline 5
Chapter 02 Research Methodology………………………………………………………… 8
2.1 Case Study Research 8

2.2 Case Study Synthesis 11
2.3 Experimentation Research 12
Chapter 03 Contemporary Rendering Analysis…………………………………………… 13
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 MIR 14
3.3 Luxigon 20
3.4 Labtop 25
3.5 Vyonyx 30
3.6 Dbox 35
3.7 Kilograph 40
3.8 RenderTaxi GbR 45
3.9 Studio AMD 49
3.10 ArteFactory 53
3.11 Evermotion 57
3.12 Contemporary Analysis Summary 61
Chapter 04 Historical Rendering Analysis………………………………………………… 66
4.1 Introduction 66
4.2 Paul Stevenson Oles 67
4.3 Frank Lloyd Wright 72
4.4 The Great Perspectivists 77
4.5 Giovanni Battista Piranesi 82
4.6 Historical Analysis Summary 86
Chapter 05 Architectural Photography Analysis………………………………………….. 91
5.1 Introduction 91
5.2 Julius Shulman 92
5.3 Ezra Stoller 96
ii
5.4 Hedrich-Blessing 100
5.5 Architectural Photography Analysis Summary 104
Chapter 06 Fundamental Principles………………………………………………………. 109
6.1 Introduction 109

6.2 Image Type 110
6.3 Image Ratio 114
6.4 Viewpoint 117
6.5 Focal Point 122
6.6 Horizon Line 124
6.7 Rule of Thirds & ¼ Division 129
6.8 Building Proportion 131
6.9 Leading Lines & Paths 132
6.10 Framing & Placement of Secondary Elements 133
6.11 Depth 135
6.12 Preliminary Experiments 137
6.13 Summary 143
Chapter 07 Principle Experiments...………………………………………………………. 144

7.2 Mimesis Museum 144
7.3 Mimesis Museum Experiment 1 146
7.6 HOK 166
7.7 HOK Experiment 1 167
7.10 Summary 180
Chapter 08 Final Projects…………………………………………………………………. 181

8.2 Nanjing Museum 181
8.3 Nanjing Project Scene 1 182
8.6 Hale Ko’ako’a (Coral House) 192
8.7 Hale Ko’ako’a Scene 1 193
8.11 Summary 204
iii
Chapter 09 Research Conclusions………………………………………………………... 205
9.1 Research Review 205
9.1.1 Case Study Review 205

9.1.2 Synthesis of Principles Review 207
9.1.3 Experimentation Review 207
9.2 Research Contributions 208
9.2.1 Architectural Education 208

9.2.2 Professional Practice 209
9.3 Future Research 210
9.3.1 Stylization in Architectural Rendering 210

9.3.2 Compositional Value in Architectural Rendering 212
9.4 Research Conclusion 212
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………213
iv
Abstract
Topic of Inquiry I
In architecture, the computer is becoming the main tool of communication. The

majority of orthographic, axonometric and perspective drawings are produced in digital
format and Architects benefit from the speed, power and precision with which drawing is
done. However, the quickness and accuracy of the computer causes a sense of negligence.
With powerful 3d modeling and rendering programs, visions of new architectural ideas are
created with ease and represented similarly. Perspective renderings are quickly set up,
rendered and presented authoritatively. In these new processes the art of representational
perspective renderings is forgotten. Despite the precision and accuracy of the computers
many renderings fail to achieve the level of success attained by beautifully constructed
perspective drawings. While there are a handful of brilliant CGI artists, there are more students
and practitioners of architecture who could benefit from a proper understanding of quality
rendering compositions. Therefore, the topic of inquiry is digital architectural rendering. The
focus of this research document identifies the rational, consistent and fundamental qualities of
architectural renderings that cause them to be identified as of higher quality and organizes
the principles into a practical systematic guideline that can be applied to the construction of
digital architectural renderings for both the novice and expert practitioner of architecture.
Hypothesis I
There is a fundamental set of principles to the construction of digital architectural

perspective renderings, that when applied, will improve the quality of the architectural
rendering representation.
Research Methodology I
Based on the assumption that a set of rendering principles exist and are quantifiable,
two research strategies were pursued.
The first phase of research examines case studies and identifies three separate
categories of architectural images for analysis; contemporary digital rendering, historic
perspective rendering and architectural photography. Through comparative analysis, two
v
systems, a grid overlay and a data collection chart, record information for each category of
images. The resulting information identifies a set of similar principles consistent across all
three categories. Based on the case study research, the assumption is made that a sequential
order of implementation exists within the set of identified principles.
The second phase of research tests the sequential order of rendering parameters
through 3d model experimentation. In this experimental process, two different building types
are used as test subjects. The first project is a medium scale museum created by Alvaro Siza,
called the Mimesis Museum. The second project is a large scale skyscraper proposed by HOK,
Shanghai office. These two test subjects are modeled in the 3ds Max software application and
rendered with the V-Ray plug-in application for 3ds Max. The process of experimentation
results in the identification of a sequential order to the principles identified in the first phase of
research. The principle rendering parameters and the verified sequence are then applied to
two final projects as a culmination of the research.
Research Conclusion I
The principle research findings identify a set of principles related to architectural

renderings along with a sequential order of application. These results suggest, that through a
systematic application of the discovered principles, architectural rendering representations
will improve in quality. While these principles will construct a sound framework towards
improved rendered images, there remains further research towards the complete
development of an artistically stylized architectural image.
vi
Chapter 1 I Introduction
In this chapter, the topic of architectural rendering is introduced, the scope of the
research investigation is identified and the outline of the research document is summarized.
1.1 Architectural Rendering
Images are presented to people on a daily basis. These images represent points of
view, some are realistic while others are idealized fantasy. These images are representations of
what is and what is to be. They are captured moments that represent the interpretations and
imaginations of the author composing them. In these images we discover new places, new
emotional connections, new feelings, new aspirations and new visions of the future. The
architectural rendering is an image that captures these characteristics. Through architectural
rendered images, the Architects visionary ideas of form, space, function and materiality are
communicated. It is because the architectural rendering is such a powerful tool for the
communication of architectural ideas that it is the topic of this investigation.
In Architecture, there are four types of drawing images used to communicate design
ideas; plan, section/elevation, axonometric (descriptive geometry) and perspective. Marcus
Vitruvius Pollio, best known as Vitruvius, in his De Architectura (Of Architecture) is credited with
the first written account of these types of drawing representations. In his ten books, Vitruvius
explains ichnographia (plan), orthographia (section) and scenographia (perspective). The last
drawing type, scenographia (perspective), forms the essence of an architectural rendering.
Erwin Panofsky, in this essay Perspective as Symbolic Form, points out that every era had its own
perspective, a system to represent the depth of space. It is only during the Renaissance that
the mathematically-based technique of linear perceptive was invented by Filippo Brunelleschi
and codified as perspectiva artificialis by Leon Battista Alberti, who wrote about perspective in
his De Pictura of 1436. The system of linear perspective is based on the concept that “given a
center of projection, or viewpoint, the image of infinite points in space can be determined if,
interposing a plane between this center and objects in space, it is possible to draw (on the
plane) the intersection between the plane and the “pyramid” of visual rays” 1 , as shown in
figure 1.01. This method of constructing a perspective drawing has been employed for
1 Avella, Fabrizio. Essay: Drawing between history and digital innovation. 2009.
1
Figure 1.01, Fabrizio Avella, Construction of a Perspective.
hundreds of years. It was consistently taught and implemented in the French Academy of
Architecture, 1671, and the Academy of Sculpture and Painting, 1648, both academy’s of the
Beaux Arts school in France. Today, the same rules of perspective construction are taught in
Schools of Architecture through systematic guides ranging from Rocco Leonardis’, “Systematic
Guide to Perspective” to William Kirby Lockard’s, “Design Drawing Experiences.” It is only till
recently that this method of constructing architectural perspective renderings through hand
drawings has shifted to computer generated perspective renderings in the field of
architecture.
Today, computers are the primary tool for the production of plans, sections, elevations,
axonometric and perspective drawings in architectural education and the professional
practice. The increased use of computer aided design, CAD, has stimulated exponential
growth in the production of computer generated, CG, architectural perspective renderings.
Computer programs such as AutoCAD, REVIT, ArchiCAD, Rhinoceros 3D, Sketchup, 3DS Max,
Maya, Cinema4D and Adobe Creative Suite, are used by architecture students and professional
architects to generate digital perspective representations. These architectural perspective
renderings are generated by the computer program through cameras or viewports. The
computer camera is a simulation camera, modeled after a real world camera. In addition, the
mathematical principles of linear perspective, codified by Alberti, are concepts “identical to
that encoded in the algorithms underlying the perspective view in a CAD program.”2 These
two characteristic within CAD programs simplify the construction of a perspective rendering,
making it effortless to generate accurately represented geometry in a digitally produced
2
architectural perspective rendering. The result is precise architectural perspective renderings
produced in fractions of the time that it traditionally took to construct through hand drawing.
This results in increased numbers of renderings being produced in schools of architecture and
professional practices, based on the speed in which a computer can generate multiple
perspective renderings from a single 3d model.
More frequently in architecture, we use CG architectural perspective renderings as a

tool of communication and design. They become a language that is accessible and
understandable to both professionals and patrons of architecture. It is in these perspective
images that complex visionary ideas are conveyed in their simplest form. Architects are able
to illustrate relationships that occur between their envisioned projects and an existing
contextual setting. They can depict a complex structural system with clarity, while also
conveying the atmosphere and intended experience through image representations. With this
tool of communication and design, architects possess the capacity to project their visions of
the future in a representation that is understandable to most, and in doing so, bridge a
communication gap that often exists between patrons of architecture and their understanding
of plans and sections.
In recognizing and understanding the importance of an architectural perspective

rendering, we must also acknowledge the existence of image quality and in doing so,
acknowledge the presence of difference in image quality. In the profession of Architecture
there are thousands of ideas that are expressed daily through rendered images. These images
range in quality. They are produced throughout the spectrum of the profession, which range
from schools of architecture to professional practices of architecture, each image is produced
with varying intentions. In schools of architecture, students produce images that are often
quick and rough with the intention of expressing their architectural concepts to their peers or
instructors for quick review. This same process occurs in a professional practice setting. Often
there is minimal time and attention given to these quick renditions in order to quickly evaluate
a concept before pursuing its development. This process is less dependent on a refined image,
given that students, teachers and professional practicing architects possess the capacity to
visualize three-dimensional concepts with proficiency. In other situations, renderings are
produced for the purposes of presentation, which typically include a jury for review in
academic settings or a client review in professional settings. In these situation, architectural
perspective renderings are given more time and attention, with the hopes that the rendered
images will successfully convey their architectural intentions in the best possible
representation. At this point, the quality of the architectural rendering becomes important.
3
Major architecture firms that can afford it, outsource to architectural visualization
specialists. These specialists produce extremely high quality architectural perspective
renderings. The quality of these architectural renderings and the difference between them
and lower quality renderings is obvious. The difference in architectural rendering quality can
best be demonstrated in the following two images. In the two examples, the quality of the
architectural renderings and the comparative difference in quality is obvious. The first image,
figure 1.02, commands the viewers attention and pulls them into the image. The
compositional elements are dynamic and balanced in harmony with the atmosphere, mood,
color, contrast and light in the image. In contrast, the second image, figure 1.03, is rough and
underdeveloped. In comparing the two images the difference in quality is obvious.
Figure 1.02, MIR. 2010.
Figure 1.03, Casa SA house, Anonimous-LED, WAN. 2008.
4
By accepting that a difference in rendering quality exists, the following question arises.
Why does this difference exist and how do we understand the qualities and characteristics that
distinguish the difference?
1.2 Hypothesis
This research investigation started with a question. Are some digitally produced
architectural renderings better than others? If so, why are they better and what makes them
better? With the assumption that high quality, digitally produced, architectural renderings
have intrinsic qualities and characteristics that are quantifiable, such as image ratio and
building ratio, the following research hypothesis is formed.
This research investigation postulates that there is a set of fundamental rendering

principles, that when applied in the construction of a digitally produced architectural
rendering, will improve the overall architectural rendering representation quality. This
investigation is limited to identifying fundamental principles for improving architectural
rendering quality and does not assume that the implementation of the fundamental principles
will achieve the highest quality architectural rendering, but simply provide a framework from
which to build upon.
1.3 Document Outline
This research document begins with the idea that there is a fundamental set of
principles that are found in high quality architectural renderings and that these principles are
identifiable. It then develops through an exhaustive case study analysis of the premiere
architectural renderings and photographs, to identify similarities and differences found in
three categories of images: Contemporary Renderings, Historical Renderings and Architectural
Photographs. From there the case study analysis is synthesized into a set of fundamental
principles. These principles are then tested through computer generated 3d rendering
experiments on two separate building types. The proved principles and identified method of
application is then applied to two projects, producing final architectural renderings that are
explained in detail. The research investigation concludes with a discussion on the issues in the
research, its contributions to architecture and future research. The research document consists
of an introduction, 6 main chapters, from Chapter 2 to Chapter 8 and a conclusion.
5
In Chapter 2, the two primary research methodologies are presented. These include,
case study and experimentation research methodologies.
In Chapter 3, 10 contemporary, industry leading, architectural visualization firms are

introduced and collections of their architectural renderings are systematically analyzed. Over
1200 images were compiled from each firms website. These firms represent work from the
leading architectural firms in the world, such as OMA, SOM, BIG, Snohetta, Frank Gehry and
more. The top firms include MIR, LUXIGON, Labtop, Vyonyx, Dbox, Kilograph, RenderTaxi,
Studio AMD and ArteFactory. All of these firms specialize in producing high quality
architectural renderings for some of the premiere architecture firms in the world. These
findings were verified in Fabio Schillaci’s “‘Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design
Manual,” which includes a detailed record of fourteen of the top rendering firms in the
architectural industry today. In addition, works from the Evermotion site were added to the
investigation. Evermotion is a leading CG (computer generated) artist website, which
showcases daily user posts of CG images.
In Chapter 4, four key groups of historical architectural renderings are introduced.

These groups represent the leading architects and architectural visualization artists from the
Renaissance to the twentieth century. The first is Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the leading
Architects of the early twentieth century with an immense body of architectural rendering
work. The second is Paul Stevenson Oles, a leading architectural visualization specialist whose
work spans half a decade and includes a list of accomplished architects. The third is Giovanni
Battista Piranesi (1720-1778), a well documented Italian artist famous for his etchings of Rome
and extravagant fictitious visions of architecture. His drawings have influenced thousands of
architects over the past centuries. The fourth is a collection of images from Gavin Stamp’s “The
Great Perspectivists,” which is a collection of historical architectural renderings that includes
the works of James Wyatt (1746-1813), Sir John Soane (1753-1837), Joseph Michael Gandy
(1771-1843), John Martin (1789-1854), John Belcher (1841-1913), H. Percy Adams (1865-1930)
and Charles Holden (1875-1960) to name a few.
In Chapter 5, two iconic architectural photographers and one leading architectural

photography firm of the twentieth century are introduced and a collection of their
photographs are analyzed. The three subjects of investigation include Julius Shulman, Ezra
Stoller and the office of Hedrich-Blessing. Obviously, there are hundreds of Architectural
photographers with large bodies of work. However, these subjects were selected based on
their vast body of published work and influence in architecture and the architectural
6
photography industry. Several publications were selected from each subject, which include,
Joseph Rosa’s “A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman,” Robert
Sobieszek’s “The Architectural Photography of Hedrich-Blessing” and William Saunders
“Modern Architecture: Photographs by Ezra Stoller.” Through these publications, hundreds of
images were collected for image analysis.
In Chapter 6, the case study analysis information is synthesized into 10 fundamental

principles that are explained in detail. The identified parameters of each principle is
introduced and the practical application of the principles are discussed.
In Chapter 7, the 10 fundamental rendering principles are tested through computer

generated 3d experimentation, as previously stated. The principles are proved and a step-by-
step method of application is identified.
In Chapter 8, the proved principles and the identified step-by-step method of

application are applied in the construction of final architectural renderings for two separate
architectural projects. Then the final architectural perspective renderings are explained in
detail.
The final chapter discusses the issues found in the research investigation, the research
contributions to architecture, future research into architectural rendering and a conclusion to
this research investigation.
7
Chapter 2 I Research Methodology
In this chapter, the research methodology for the investigation into architectural
renderings is presented. Two primary research methods are used to test the hypothesis, Case
Study and Experimentation research. Each research strategy is explained in the next section.
2.1 Case Study Research
The research system used in the following Chapters 3, 4 & 5, is a case study research
methodology comprised of three categories of image investigation, which included
contemporary renderings, historical renderings and architectural photographs. The
investigation evaluates existing architectural renderings through image analysis to identify
qualities, elements and techniques that are inherent to architectural renderings. Two systems
of image analysis were created and employed to collect data from each case study category of
architectural renderings with the intention of measuring a certain amount of variables, which
could then be documented in a data chart for comparison.
The first system is a grid system comprised of two overlapping grids and a horizon line
indicator, intended to identify major compositional elements or events that occur in alignment
with or at the intersections within the rendering. The first grid, figure 2.01, is made up of a
dashed white line that divides the image into quarters, which is an even division of space
intended to identify major occurrences that might happen in the rendering being analyzed.
The second grid, figure 2.02, is made up of a dashed orange line that divides the image into
thirds, which is an odd division of space, also intended to identify major compositional
Figure 2.01, ¼ division grid. Figure 2.02, ⅓ division grid.
8
1/4 Grid
1/3 Grid
Horizon Line
Figure 2.03, Horizon line, ¼ & ⅓ division grid overlay.
elements that might occur in the rendering. The final element overlaying each image is a bold
orange dashed line which identifies the Horizon Line, HL, figure 2.03, location of each
rendering. The horizon line is a phenomenon that occurs in 99% of rendered images and
indicates the point at which the sky and the earth meet in the distance. While science tells us
that this point is a matter of perception and does not actually exist, in pictorial depiction this
phenomenon marks the transition from one to the other, which we as people are very aware
of and see through our perspective on a daily basis.
The second system of analysis is a data collection chart. The chart is comprised of 10
separate variables of measurement categories, which include Image Type, Image Length,
Image Width, Image Ratio, Horizon Line %, Grid 1/3 &1/4, Interior/Exterior, Building % Ratio,
Viewpoint and Evaluation. Figure 2.04 is an example of the data collection chart. The Firm
Image category, indicates the name of the firm and the number of the image being analyzed.
The Image Type, indicates wether the rendered images is a landscape, portrait or square
Figure 2.04, Empty data collection chart.
9
Figure 2.05, Filled data collection chart.
image. The Image Length, identifies the larger length of the image and is not dependent on
the orientation of the image. For example, if the image is a landscape type then the length is
recorded and if the image is a portrait type then the height is recorded. The Image Width,
identifies the shorter length of the image. Similar to Image Length, the shorter length is
recorded regardless of orientation. The Image Ratio is a simple calculation that divides the
length of the image by the width of the image. An image with a length of 17in. and a width of
9in. results in a 1:1.88 ratio. The Horizon Line % (HL) identifies the percentage at which the HL
occurs in the rendered image. The percentage is determined by identifying the location of the
HL, then measuring the distance from the bottom of the image to the HL and dividing the
result by the total height of the image. The Grid 1/3s & 1/4s, identifies compositional events or
moments that occur in alignment or at an intersection. Interior/Exterior, simply identifies
whether the rendered image is an exterior scene or an interior scene. The Building % Ratio,
identifies the percentage of the image that the building occupies. Viewpoint Location, records
what the location of the viewpoint is in relation to the human eye level. Four separate
classification options were designated to this category and are identified as Below Eye Level
(BEL), Eye Level (EL), Above Eye Level (AEL) and Bird’s Eye Level (BIRDS). Finally, the Evaluation
category rates the image on a scale from 1-5, 1 = failing, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 =
above average, 5 = excellent. Figure 2.05 shows an example of a typical data chart following
image analysis.
In summary, the case study research methodology will be implemented in Chapters 3,

4 & 5. Data will be collected for each group of images and processed through the two
proposed methods, above. The results from that group will be charted and compared to the
other groups within each chapter. The results from each group in the chapter will then be
averaged. This same process will be applied for each of the chapters.
10
2.2 Case Study Synthesis
The average results of the case study analysis from each chapter will be collected for
comparison. The similarities and differences will be separated into groups. Then the
similarities will be synthesized into a set of identified principle qualities that are consistent in
high quality architectural renderings. The similar qualities will formulate the fundamental
principles that will later be tested in 3d rendering experiments. The diagram in figure 2.06
represents the case study research and the synthesis of the data, which culminates in a set of
similar principle qualities.
Collection of Architectural Renderings
Contemporary Historical Architecutural

Renderings Renderings Photography
Data Analysis Chart & Grid System
Similarities Differences Similarities Differences Similarities Differences
Similar Principle Qualities
Figure 2.06, Case Study Principle Synthesis.
11
2.3 Experimentation Research
The experimentation research will test the principles, derived through the case study
research and synthesis, through rendering experiments in the Autodesk 3ds Max modeling,
animation and rendering program, which provides a comprehensive, integrated 3D modeling,
animation and rendering solution for architectural rendering. In addition, the V-Ray rendering
plug-in will be used to render the architectural images. Both the application and the plug-in
are industry standards and perform at the highest level of quality.
Following Chapter 6, which summarizes the derived fundamental principles, Chapter 7

will test each principle on two test projects. The principles will be tested through multiple
renderings of a specific principle. The principle variable will change for each rendering test.
Then the multiple rendering tests for each principle will be analyzed. Finally, a conclusion will
be drawn based on the results of the rendering experiments, proving or disproving the case
study, derived principles.
In the next chapter, 10 contemporary visualization firms will be introduced and over
1200 case study renderings will be analyzed. The results will then be averaged.
12
Chapter 3 I Contemporary Rendering Analysis
In this chapter, the research will analyze a collection of rendered images from each of
the 10 case study subjects using the previously stated grid method and data collection chart.
Each group analysis will include a detailed description of the firm, a sample of the data
collection chart, several image samples of the firms work and a detailed summary of the
research.
Following the contemporary firm analysis, the final section of Chapter 3 will
summarize the research findings by identifying the similarities and differences shared
between each of the case study groups. The information will further be used to compare with
the data summaries of Chapter 4, Historical Image Analysis & Chapter 5, Photographic Image
Analysis.
3.1 Introduction
Throughout the field of Architecture, high quality architectural renderings are

presented to both private clients and the public as a means of communication of complex
architectural visions and concepts. Some images are produced within the architectural
organization while others are outsourced to professional visualization studios that specialize in
architectural rendering. There are hundreds of professional visualization firms that specialize
in the manufacturing of architectural renderings worldwide. Architecture firms of all sizes with
the intent of producing professional architectural images contract these rendering firms.
Within this collection of rendering firms there is a small group of several firms whose work
consistently appears in major Architecture magazines, such as Architectural Record and
Architectural Review and major Architecturel news websites, such as ArchDaily and World
Architecture News, representing the work of established and distinguished Architects and
Architectural firms. This chapter will identify 10 of the key architectural rendering groups that
profoundly impact the contemporary field of architecture. These 10 groups; MIR, Luxigon,
Labtop, Vyonyx, Dbox, Kilograph, RenderTaxi, Studio AMD, Artefactory, and Evermotion were
chosen as case study subjects because of their tremendous image quality and contributions to
architectural rendering.
13
3.2 MIR
MIR is a world renown Norwegian based architectural visualization specialist firm that
makes portraits of non existing spaces and architecture and are located in Bergen, Norway.
Although they are located in Norway, their clients are found all over the world. The firm was
founded in 2000 and is quite accomplished, possessing a resume that showcases some of the
worlds most ambitious projects while working with some of the leading architecture firms and
forefront Architects in the world. A sample of their work includes: Brussels Airport Connector,
UN Studio 2011; Nanjing Master-plan, SOM Chicago 2011; Nuuk, Bjarke Ingels Group 2011;
Marintek - Visitors centre, Snohetta 2010; and Nasjonalmuseet - The Transition, JAJA 2010. The
firm is comprised of 9 professionals; 4 architects/illustrators, a communication designer, 2 3d
artist/illustrators and 2 furniture designers/illustrators.
The firm chose the name MIR, which is Russian and means; peace and world.
Furthermore, the MIR satellite, a high-tech installation in outer space controlled with analogue
tools had an influence on the direction the firm took in identifying themselves. “The name is a
gesture to how love, inventiveness, curiosity and knowledge is more important the modern
digital technology.”1 In an interview with Ronen Bekerman, 2011, MIR discussed some of their
philosophical views that influence the visual work that they produce. As Norwegians, MIR sees
themselves as part of nature and approach their work in an organic and naturalistic sense,
which attempts to represent their understanding of the world. These fundamental ideas allow
MIR to use digital technology as a tool to support the final image and not be controlled or
limited by it. In addition, MIR believes that “portraits capture the soul and character of the
subject” and that “great images tell their own story, which have the ability to evoke emotional
response.”2
Based on MIR’s professional credentials, their production process and their

philosophical views towards images, an investigative analysis was performed on 287 images,
collected from the MIR website. The following data chart (figure 3.01) is a sample of 30 images
from the complete record of the 287 MIR images. A sample portion of the complete study is
shown to provide a visual sense of the information recorded. In addition, several sample
images were included to provide an understanding to the level of proficiency and quality that
MIR produces in their images.
1 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-mir/, 2011

2 MIR website homepage, http://www.mir.no/
14
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
MIR Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:;< 9=;> 9;??@@=<@ =;<< Y Ext 35% EL A
Image 02 L <=;? 9=;> < =;B? N Ext 30% EL B
Image 03 P 9=;> ?;C 9;A9B:=A@ =;=@ Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 04 P 9=;> :;: 9;>>:??<> =;<9 Y Ext 30% EL B
Image 05 L <=;: 9=;> <;==@:=C: =;>@ Y Ext 22% AEL A
Image 06 L 9@;9 9=;> 9;CAB>?C@ =;B9 Y Ext 22% AEL A
Image 07 L 9B;@ 9=;> 9;BB??=9@ =;<: Y Int 100% AEL B
Image 08 P 9=;> C;B 9;<<?9@=A =;>> N Ext 100% AEL >
Image 09 P 9=;> ?;@ 9;B@<:A>? =;>> Y Int 45% BEL A
Image 10 L 9B;? 9=;> 9;B9:B:A: =;>> Y Ext 25% AEL B
Image 11 L 9>;9 9=;> 9;<:9CBB: =;>> Y Ext 17% AEL B
Image 12 P 9=;> ?;C 9;A9B:=A@ =;A Y Ext 100% AEL B
Image 13 P 9=;> ?;C 9;A9B:=A@ =;>A Y Ext 66% AEL B
Image 14 L 9:;A 9=;> 9;?@@=<@9 =;>> Y Ext 44% AEL A
Image 15 L 9: 9=;> 9;?A=BCAB =;>A Y Ext 22% EL A
Image 16 L 9:;C 9=;> 9;:<C9AA> =;BA Y Int 100% AEL A
Image 17 L 9A;< 9=;> 9;B:A:<C< =;<> Y Ext 44% EL B
Image 18 L 9@;: 9=;> 9;@9<?<9B =;?? Y Ext 17% AEL >
Image 19 L <=;: 9=;> <;==@:=C: =;A Y Ext 66% AEL B
Image 20 L 9C;: 9=;> 9;C9AA>B =;>C Y Int 100% EL B
Image 21 L 9:;? 9=;> 9;:=C:>:@ =;?C Y Ext 11% BIRDS B
Image 22 L 9@;< 9=;B 9;CB?9A>C =;9C N Int 100% EL >
Image 23 L 9@;C 9=;> 9;@<<>>=9 =;>> Y Ext 22% AEL A
Image 24 L <9;< :;< <;@BBBBBB =;:C Y Ext 11% BIRDS B
Image 25 L <9 9=;> <;=>CC>A =;9: Y Ext 44% AEL A
Image 26 L <9;9 C <;?>:A =;<A Y Ext 22% EL A
Image 27 L 9@;9 9=;> 9;CAB>?C@ =;<A N Int 100% EL >
Image 28 L 9>;< 9=;> 9;<C9AA>B =;>> Y Int 100% EL B
Image 29 L <=;: 9=;> <;==@:=C: =;B@ Y Ext 22% BIRDS B
Image 30 L 9C;B 9=;> 9;:C?B=:C =;?> Y Ext 33% BIRDS B
Figure 3.01, Data Chart, MIR.
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.02, Image 01, MIR Figure 3.03, Image 06, MIR
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.04, Image 16, MIR Figure 3.05, Image 26, MIR
15
MIR Image Summary
The following information is a summary of the data collected and recorded in the
image analysis chart that looked into 287 MIR case study images:
72
Image Type
91% Landscape Images
7% Portrait Images
2% Square Images
91
Image Ratio
42
% of Images
25
14
9
2 3 5
0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
46 42
% of Images
10
2
Below Eye Level Eye Level Above Eye Level Bird’s Eye Level
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
26 26
% of Images
16 16
7 7
0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
Interior/Exterior
23
77% of Images were Exterior
23% of Images were Interior
77
16
Horizon Line
75
% of Images
25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Below Eye Level Horizon Line
33
27
% of Images
21
15
2 2 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Eye Level Horizon Line
35 35
% of Images
14
5 4 4 3
0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Above Eye Level Horizon Line
40
30
% of Images
20
10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Bird’s Eye Level Horizon Line
13
1/4 & 1/3 Grid
87% Compositional element at a grid intersection
13% No compositional element at a grid intersection
87
17
The MIR image can be summarized as nothing short of outstanding. The mastery of
the technical rendering engine, Lightwave, showcases a realism in materials, lighting and
intrinsic qualities of realism represented through digital images. The realism of the depicted
space and architecture creates a framework for the image, which is emotionally enhanced
through photoshop post-production work. The final image combines technical software
mastery and artful stylization. Their images are rivaled by only a few other professional
rendering studios. The average MIR image had an evaluation of 4.65 out of 5.
Upon review of the analysis results of MIR images, several key discoveries were
identified. First, 91% of the rendered scenes produced by the MIR office are landscape images.
The natural supposition would be that 91% of the scenes depicted low lying architecture or
short buildings. However, 31% of the images depicted tall buildings, leaving 69% of the
images depicting short buildings. The conclusion is drawn that the preferred image type is
landscape and that the building type has less influence. Second, the image ratio results show
that 42% of the images fit within the image aspect ratio range between 1:1.6 to 1:2. After
review of the images, it was identified that the majority of the images that were given the
highest evaluation score also possessed higher image ratios. While 25% of the images had a
image ratio between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6, the average evaluation of the images had a lower
evaluation score compared to the higher image ratios, whose average evaluation score was
higher. The conclusion, is that the image ratio range of 1:1.6 to 1:2 has a tendency to produce
higher quality images over a lower image ratio. Third, the viewpoint of the images are split
between two viewpoint types, 46% eye level and 42% above eye level. This suggests that the
preferred viewpoint that MIR choses to depict their architectural scenes is at eye level or
slightly above eye level. Fourth, the building ratio results show that the majority of the
exterior scenes, 26%, have a building percentage of 22% of the image. 26% of the images are
classified as having a 100% building percentage, which was given to interior scenes. Since
23% of the images analyzed were interior shots, that leaves 3% of the exterior scenes having a
100% building percentage. In addition, the remaining building ratio results show that the 33%
& 44% building percentage categories contain 32% of the images. The conclusion, is that the
majority of images have a building percentage to image ratio range between 22% to 44%,
primarily for exterior images. Interior images maintain a building percentage of 100%. Fifth,
the horizon line results show that the majority of below eye level viewpoints have a range
between 20-30% of the image. The majority of eye level viewpoint images have a range
between 20-30%. Also, of the eye level images in the 30-40% HL category, most of the images
HL were 35% and below. The conclusion is that the horizon line range for below eye level and
eye level viewpoints is between 10-35%, where the majority of horizon lines occur between
18
20-30%. In the above eye level horizon line category, 70% of the images have the horizon line
occurring between 30-50% of the image. This tells us that the horizon line from an above eye
level viewpoint will be positioned higher in the image in comparison to a below eye level or
eye level viewpoint. The conclusion is that MIR’s above eye level scenes have a horizon line
range between 30-50%. The bird’s eye level horizon line chart shows that 90% of the images
have a horizon line range between 60-90% of the image. This range reflects an inverse
relationship to the below eye level and eye level horizon line range. It is important to note
that of the bird’s eye level images a horizon line is always visible in the rendered scenes, there
were no cases where a horizon line did not exist. Finally, 87% of the images incorporated
compositional use of the ⅓ division grid and the ¼ division grid.
In summary, the overall quality of the images studied is exceptional. The images
provided value and the information contributes to the identification of fundamental principles
in rendering a successful architectural image. The following section will analyze the images of
the architectural visualization firm, Luxigon.
19
3.3 Luxigon
Luxigon is a world leading architecture visualization firm whose work is represented

throughout the architecture world in major architectural magazines and Internet websites.
The firm is located in Paris, France, but like many of the other leading visualization firms their
body of work is global. Luxigon, founded recently in 2008, is a continuation of a previous
visualization studio called Auralab, which was founded in 1999 with Thomas Series of Labtop.
Luxigon was founded by Eric de Broche des Combes and Laurent Theaux, both Architects
specializing in visual representation. Their office consists of 15 professionals, 8 of which are
Architects and 7 graphic designers. Over the past four years their body of work has been
impressive, working on major world projects with leading Architects. Their work includes: CLC
& MSFL Towers, Shenzhen, REX; Rockmagneten, Roskilde, MVRDV; Wei-wu-ying Center for the
Arts, Kaohsiung, Mecanoo; Oslo station, Oslo, Spacegroup; 23 east 22 street, NYC, OMA; and
House of Culture & Movement, Frederiksberg, MVRDV.
Luxigon’s philosophical rule when constructing a rendering is to ”“not make it dull”

and attempt to show the spirit and carnal part of a project.”3 “Their view on architecture, is
that it is not just a program and some geometric forms, but that it is mainly a vision.”4 The
images that are produced have a gritty and dark atmosphere, an edge that moves the viewer
emotionally. Luxigon prides themselves on presenting an edgier point of view, which
produces high contrasting images. Their work focuses on strong foundational muted color
palettes that inject jolts of bold colors for stark contrasts to the toned dark backgrounds. The
office is known for their use of Cinema4d as their primary modeling and render engine. They
use the Advanced Renderer of Cinema4d, but also are known to use V-Ray for Cinema4d as a
rendering engine. Photoshop is their primary tool in the office, using it for 75% of the
production of one image. The firm uses both PC systems and Mac systems for their
computing. As a hobby, both founding members are interested in contemporary photography
and practice the art daily, which cultivates their compositional understanding of the image.
Based on their profound work, they are a perfect subject to analyze. 112 images were
collected from their Luxigon website and data was recorded in the following data chart (figure
3.06). A sample portion of the data is shown along with several sample images of their work.
3 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-luxigon/, 2011
4 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-luxigon/, 2011
20
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Luxigon Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 31 L 99:9 ;;:; 9 <:;9 N Int 100% BEL =
Image 32 L ;=:9 >:? 9:;;@=<A <:9B Y Int 100% BEL B
Image 33 L ;=:9 >:= 9:9;C?B <:9B Y Ext 100% EL B
Image 34 L ;=:9 @:9 ;:B=A=?CA <:=; N Int 100% EL =
Image 35 L ;=:9 ?:? ;:C==;BBC <:A; N Ext 100% EL =
Image 36 L ;=:9 C ;:??B <:9B N Ext 33% AEL B
Image 37 L ;=:9 C ;:??B <:A? Y Ext 100% EL =
Image 38 L ;=:9 C ;:??B <:9C Y Ext 100% BEL =
Image 39 L ;=:9 B 9:C= <:9B Y Ext 22% EL =
Image 40 L 99:9 ?:@ 9:C;<;9>> <:9@ Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 41 L ;=:9 ;<:? ;:A9?;<9C <:AB Y Int 100% EL A
Image 42 L ;A:@ >:@ 9:<;==@9C <:9; Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 43 L 99:9 ;;:; 9 <:;B Y Ext 22% BEL B
Image 44 L ;=:9 ;<:? ;:A9?;<9C <:;B Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 45 L ;=:9 ?:; 9 <:9B N Ext 100% BEL =
Image 46 L ;=:9 C ;:??B <:;A Y Ext 44% BEL B
Image 47 L 99:9 ;<:B 9:;;=9CB? <:9; Y Ext 100% EL B
Image 48 L ;=:9 ?:; 9 <:9? Y Ext 66% BEL B
Image 49 L 99:9 ;9:C ;:?A=A?B <:;? Y Ext 44% BEL B
Image 50 L ;=:9 ?:; 9 <:9; N Ext 66% BEL =
Image 51 L ;=:9 ?:9 ;:@?99999 <:AB N Ext 22% EL B
Image 52 P 99:9 ;C:B ;:9 <:9C Y Ext 44% AEL B
Image 53 L ;=:9 ;<:? ;:A9?;<9C <:9 N Int 100% BEL B
Image 54 L ;=:9 C ;:??B D(,% Y Ext 22% BIRDS =
Image 55 L ;=:9 B:@ 9:=<>??@? <:;9 Y Ext 66% BEL B
Image 56 L ;=:9 B:C 9:==C9?B@ <:9@ Y Ext 44% EL =
Image 57 L ;=:9 B:C 9:==C9?B@ <:B N Int 100% EL A
Image 58 L ;=:9 >:9 9:9@<A99> <:;C Y Ext 100% BEL B
Image 59 L ;=:9 >:99 9:9C9@BC9 <:;@ N Int 100% BEL =
Image 60 L ;=:9 @:B ;:=@=?A>C <:; Y Ext 22% BEL =
Figure 3.06, LUXIGON Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.07, Image 43, LUXIGON Figure 3.08, Image 45, LUXIGON
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.09, Image 46, LUXIGON Figure 3.10, Image 36, LUXIGON
21
Luxigon Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 112 Luxigon case study images:
Image Type
52
5% Portrait Images
2% Square Images
93
Image Ratio
40
% of Images
15 17 16
3 4 5
0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
51
% of Images
34
13
2
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
27 25
20
% of Images
18
10
0 0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
Interior/Exterior 23
77
22
Horizon Line
49
35
% of Images
8 8
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
41
% of Images
26
15
9
6 3 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
24 24
% of Images
16
7 8 7 7 7
0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
33
1/4 &1/3 Grid
67
23
The average Luxigon image had an evaluation of 4.5 out of 5. This exemplifies the
quality of their architectural renderings. As an artful master of architectural scenes the
majority of their work captures both the fundamental and technical framework of a high
quality rendering, coupled with the artistic expression of a meaningful and moving image.
Upon review of the analysis results of Luxigon images, several key discoveries were
identified. First, similarly to MIR, 93% of the rendered scenes produced are landscape images.
Second, when looking at the image ratio it is clear that the preferred image ratio range is
between 1:1.6 to 1:2, having 40% of the images fall within this range. In addition, it can be
pointed out that Luxigon tends to create higher aspect ratio images. The higher aspect ratio
images consistently receive the highest evaluation score. Third, when evaluating the
viewpoint analysis it is clear that Luxigon prefers to create below eye level viewpoint images,
which account for 51% of the image scenes. Furthermore, the eye level viewpoint accounts for
34% of the image scenes. The conclusion is that the majority of Luxigon’s images are from the
below eye level or at eye level viewpoint. Fourth, the building percentage analysis shows that
25% of the images have a 100% building ratio and of the 25%, 23% of the images were interior
scenes and 2% were exterior. The majority of images have a building ratio between 22-44% of
the image. Fifth, the horizon line results show that the majority of below eye level images
have a horizon line range between 10-30%. The eye level images have a horizon line range
between 10-35%. The majority of above eye level images have a horizon line range between
30-50% and the majority of bird’s eye level images have a horizon line range between 80-90%.
The results show that the rendered images produced by Luxigon have a tendency to position
the horizon line on the low end of the spectrum for below eye level and eye level shots and on
the high end of the spectrum for bird’s eye level shots. The above eye level shots are
consistent with MIR’s averages. Finally, 67% of the images made use of the ⅓ & ¼ division
girds in the composition of their scenes.
In summary, this group of Luxigon images exemplify the highest standard in
architectural renderings and the information contributes to the identification of fundamental
principles in rendering. The following section will analyze the images of the architectural
visualization firm, Labtop.
24
3.4 Labtop
Labtop is a continuation of Auralab, which was founded by Thomas Series and Eric de
Broche des Combes of Luxigon. Their office is also located in Paris, France and, like Luxigon,
they are a small firm whose architectural renderings are extremely stylistic rather than
pristinely photorealistic. All of the eight members of Labtop are Architects. A list of their work
includes: Danish Pavillion, Shanghai, Bjarke Ingels Group; Deichmanske Library, Oslo, Schmidt
Hammer Lassen; Seoul Opera House, Korea, Spacegroup.
Labtop is a 75% photoshop 25% rendering software studio who focuses on the power
of photoshop to give their rendered images an emotional edge. In their work, the playfulness
of their youth is evident. Their images do not focus on the accuracy of material texturing and
shadowing found in images that depend 90% on the rendering software, but rather, focus on
the atmosphere and mood of the depicted scenes, which is typically manipulated in image
editing software such as Photoshop. In the production of their renderings they “never lose
sight of the overall project and the purpose of the image, which is essentially to give a clear
explanation of the strongest architectural intentions.”5 In addition, their experience has
revealed to them that “wise and clever architects often dislike neat and accurate renderings
because a realistic image does not show the unfinished project in its best light.”6 This
philosophical approach to their rendering process gives them flexibility and speed, which
allows them to work quicker and focus on the impression of the image rather than the realism.
Their main modeling, animation & rendering program is Cinema4d, which accounts for
25% of the image production process. It is important to understand that although Labtop
focuses on the quick production of a semi rough image, later manipulated in Photoshop, they
nevertheless work with a highly sophisticated program that gives them the flexibility to
pursue such techniques.
The professional recognition of their work as a sought out architectural rendering firm
is evident in their client list and worldwide publication. Furthermore, their work captures the
spirit of the space, architecture and time that they are depicting. For these reasons, a selection
of 73 images were collected for image analysis. The following chart (figure 3.11) and image
samples show a portion of the data results. This information is followed by a group of data
analysis charts.
5 Thomas Series, quote, found in Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design Manual, Fabio Schillaci.
6 Fabio Schillaci, Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design Manual, 2009.
25
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Labtop Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 21 L 9:;: <;: 9;=><9::= ?;?< Y Ext 33% EL @
Image 22 P 99;9 A;B 9;BB=BC<C ?;?A Y Ext 55% BEL C
Image 23 L 9:;: <;A 9;:<BA==: ?;A= N Ext 44% BIRDS C
Image 24 P 99;= <;B 9;>@A?:C@ ?;?@ N Ext 55% BEL C
Image 27 L A;>@ @ 9;:@ ?;>@ Y Ext 11% AEL C
Image 28 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;>= Y Ext 33% BEL @
Image 29 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;>= Y Ext 33% BEL @
Image 30 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;?< Y Int 100% BEL @
Image 31 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;9: Y Int 100% BEL @
Image 32 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;:: N Ext 11% BIRDS B
Image 33 L 9:;: <;= 9;=99BC?> ?;>: Y Ext 22% BEL C
Image 34 L 9:;: <;< 9;:=:=:== D(,% Y Ext 11% BEL C
Image 35 L 9:;: <;< 9;:=:=:== ?;99 N Ext 77% EL B
Image 36 L 9:;: <;> 9;A?CBC=A ?;>< Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 37 L 9:;: <;> 9;A?CBC=A D(,% N Ext 11% BIRDS B
Image 38 L 9:;: A;B > ?;AC Y Ext 33% BIRDS B
Image 39 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;=@ Y Ext 11% BIRDS C
Image 40 L 9:;: <;A 9;:<BA==: ?;?< Y Ext 33% EL C
Image 41 L 9:;: 9?;@ 9;@A?<@>C ?;B9 Y Ext 22% AEL @
Image 42 L 9A;@ 99;: 9;@<CA>=: ?;B9 Y Ext 22% AEL @
Image 43 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;?< Y Ext 100% BEL C
Image 44 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;:> Y Ext 100% AEL @
Image 45 L 9:;: <;> 9;A?CBC=A ?;9 Y Ext 66% BEL C
Image 46 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;CB Y Ext 100% EL C
Image 47 L 9:;: <;B 9;=AC<C:> ?;>@ Y Int 100% EL C
Image 48 L 9:;: A;A 9;AA:B:B: ?;B= Y Ext 66% BEL C
Image 49 L 9:;= <;< 9;:A:A:A= ?;B= Y Ext 33% EL C
Image 50 L 9:;: <;< 9;:=:=:== ?;9A Y Int 100% EL B
Figure 3.11, Labtop Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.12, Image 29, Labtop Figure 3.13, Image 21, Labtop
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.14, Image 31, Labtop Figure 3.15, Image 33, Labtop
26
Labtop Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 73 Labtop case study images:
52
Image Type
5% Portrait Images
2% Square Images
93
Image Ratio
74
% of Images
10 15
1 0 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
46
% of Images
34
12 8
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
25
% of Images
18
15 13 15
7
3 3
0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
87
27
Horizon Line
43
% of Images
31
17
9
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
39
% of Images
22
17
11 11
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
33
% of Images
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
80
% of Images
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
23
1/4 &1/3 Grid
77
28
The overall quality of the Labtop image is great, receiving a 4.1 out of 5 evaluation.
The images are similar to Luxigon’s in that they possess strong fundamental parameters
enhanced by artfully constructed post-production compositions. Upon review of the analysis
results of Labtop images, several key discoveries were identified. First, similarly to MIR and
Luxigon, 93% of the images had the landscape image type. Second, nearly identical to the
results of Luxigon, the majority of images, 74%, had a image ratio of 1:1.6 to 1:2. Third, the
viewpoint for the majority of images, 46%, were constructed at eye level, followed by 34% of
images constructed at a viewpoint below eye level. Fourth, when evaluating the building ratio
results there are a two differences from the two previous case study results. The 11% and 55%
building percentage category increase in percentage of images. This result is different from
the two previous studies, which showed significantly less percentages of images that possess
the 11% & 55% building ratio. However, the majority of images had a 33% building ratio,
which is consistent with the previous case studies. Fifth, in the horizon line category the
below eye level images see an increase in the 0-10% range. While the majority of images have
a 10-20% horizon line range, the increase in the 0-10% shows similarities with the Luxigon
image, as these firms tend to push the horizon line down. In the eye level images the horizon
line range is consistent with the previous case studies, fitting into a range of 10-35%. The
above eye level images are split between two ranges with the majority of images having a
range of 60-70%, which is a little higher than the previous two case studies. In the bird’s eye
level images the horizon line range is between 70-90% and consistent with both previous case
studies. Finally, there is a 77% usage of the ⅓ & ¼ division grids in the compositional
construction of Labtop images.
In summary, this group of Labtop images show consistencies with the results of both
the MIR and Luxigon image analysis results and the information contributes to the
identification of fundamental principles in rendering. The following section will analyze the
images of the architectural visualization firm, Vyonyx.
29
3.5 Vyonyx
Vyonyx is an architectural rendering and design company based in London, UK. They
are comprised of 5 Architects, 4 founding partners and 1partner. They have an long list of
credible architectural renderings and work with clients such as Norman Foster, Massimiliano
Fuksas and Gensler, London office. The majority of their work is done for Foster + Partners,
producing nearly all of the architectural renderings that are released for publication by Foster
+ Partners. Many of their other clients are based in London but they do work with
international clients as well. There visual works include: King Abdullah Financial District Mixed
Use Tower, Gensler; Sheikh Zayed National Museum, Foster + Partners; Spaceport America,
Foster + Patners; Tree Top Villa, Oppenheim Architects; Archives Nationales, Massimiliano
Fuksas.
Vyonyx rendering development process is what is known as the standard within the
architectural visualization and architectural communities. They rely on Rhinoceros 3D and 3ds
Max as their primary tool for modeling and rendering. Furthermore, the rendered images are
post processed in Adobe CS Photoshop and After Effects. The company has an “open policy
towards sharing ideas and knowledge. Our team is constantly researching and developing
new methods and techniques, with the aims of stimulating the industry and helping its natural
evolution.”7 The evidence of their policy is found on the website, which offers multiple bundles
of downloadable image resources, such as trees, people and other entourage elements.
Additionally, the site also offers several instructional videos demonstrating their image
development and processing techniques. Their rendered images rely heavily on 3ds Max,
which form the foundation of their images, but equal use of Photoshop is visible in their final
images. The work division between 3ds Max and Photoshop is 50/50.
Their architectural renderings achieve the highest level of quality and are recognized
throughout the world of architecture. The images possess as sense of magical dreaminess and
are not 100% photorealistic. This atmospheric quality sets their images apart from the
abundance of hardline photorealism renderings that pervade the CG industry. Most of the
images analyzed posses a quality of excellence, which places their work in among the best in
the industry. For these reasons, a selection of 116 images were collected for image analysis.
The following chart (figure 3.16) and image samples show a portion of the data results. This
information is followed by a group of data analysis charts.
7 Vyonyx Website, http://vyonyx.com/about/ ,December 2011
30
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Vyonyx Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 61 P 9:;< 99;: 9;9=>9<:? =;9: Y Int 100% EL @
Image 62 L 9@;9 >;A 9;?BAB<:9 =;C? N Ext 33% AEL <
Image 63 L 9C;:@ 9=;C 9;:BA<=>B =;9< Y Int 100% EL <
Image 64 L 9A;A 99;A 9;<C9=C<@ =;C9 Y Ext 44% EL C
Image 65 L 9A;A 9=;< 9;@?A9@CB =;C9 Y Ext 44% EL <
Image 66 L 9B;< >;A :;<:9=@:A =;@ N Ext 100% AEL <
Image 67 L 9A;A A;A :;@9@9@9@ =;AA Y Ext 33% BIRDS @
Image 68 L 9@ 9: 9;:@ =;@ N Ext 100% EL C
Image 69 P 9:;@ ? 9;CBBBBB? =;<@ Y Ext 100% EL <
Image 70 L 9C;A 99;> 9;9A:C?C: =;<< Y Ext 100% EL <
Image 71 L 9@;: 9= 9;@: =;< N Ext 100% EL <
Image 72 L 9@;9 99;9 9;CA=CA=< =;9: N Ext 44% EL <
Image 73 L 9@;9 9=;A 9;<:<@:BC =;9? N Ext 33% AEL C
Image 74 L 9@;9 ?;< 9;A=ACBC =;@ Y Ext 22% EL C
Image 75 P 9:;> >;? 9;A=>@?<? =;C< Y Ext 44% EL <
Image 76 P 9:;< ?;< 9;C9?9<B? =;@ N Int 100% EL <
Image 77 L 9C;B ? 9;@CCCCCC =;@ N Int 100% EL C
Image 78 L 9C;B ?;C 9;<BCB>9 =;@A N Int 100% EL C
Image 79 L 9C;B ?;@ 9;<@:AC9A =;@B N Int 100% EL <
Image 80 L 9<;? B;? 9;A><9@>C =;@< Y Ext 100% AEL <
Image 81 L 9@;9 >;@ :;=9CCCCC =;C9 N Ext 100% AEL <
Image 82 L 9A;> 9:;A 9;C:@C?AB =;B< N Ext 11% BIRDS C
Image 83 L 9>;A B;A :;=<A@99A =;CC Y Ext 33% AEL <
Image 84 L 9A;A ?;< 9;>A@?@>< =;< N Int 100% EL C
Image 85 L 9A;A 9=;< 9;@?A9@CB =;C> Y Int 100% EL <
Image 86 L 9A;A 99;C 9;<A?=:A@ =;<< Y Int 100% EL <
Image 87 L 9B;C >;> :;C>AA:C< =;:@ N Ext 66% AEL <
Image 88 L 9<;? ?;< 9;@B@9=A< =;9@ Y Ext 77% EL <
Image 89 L 9@ ?;< 9;@?@><<> =;<< Y Ext 22% AEL C
Image 90 L 9@ ?;< 9;@?@><<> =;A< Y Ext 22% AEL C
Figure 3.16, Vyonyx Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.17, Image 66, Vyonyx Figure 3.18, Image 85, Vyonyx
1/4 1/4
1/3 HL 1/3
HL
Figure 3.19, Image 67, Vyonyx Figure 3.20, Image 86, Vyonyx
31
Vyonyx Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 116 Vyonyx case study images:
14
Image Type
14% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
86
Image Ratio
34
30
% of Images
20
10
4 2
0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
54
% of Images
32
12
2
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
29 31
% of Images
18
13
3 3 3
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
30
Interior/Exterior
70
32
Horizon Line
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
31
27
% of Images
19
15
8
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
41
% of Images
29
18
6 6
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
40 40
% of Images
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
47
1/4 &1/3 Grid
53
33
The Vyonyx architectural image is consistently impressive, but compared with the MIR
image quality it falls a little short, with an evaluation of 3.75 out of 5. Based on the analysis
results, the images have many similar qualities, but also have more differences.
First, the analysis results of Vyonyx images show that the image type is landscape in
86% of the images. Second, the majority of images, 34%, have an image ratio between 1:1.4 to
1:1.6, this is different from the previous case studies. Furthermore, there is also an increase in
the percentage of images within the 1:1.2 to 1:1.4 range. While examining these images, there
was a direct correlation between the image quality and the image ratio. As the image ratios
decreased the consistent quality of the image decreased. Therefore resulting, in an increase
number of images that received lower evaluations in quality. Third, 54% of the images had a
viewpoint at eye level. Fourth, the building ratio results are consistent with the previous case
studies. The interior images account for 31% of the 33% of images with a 100% ratio. While
the majority of the images have a 33% building ratio, the range from 22-44% consistently
contain the majority of all the exterior images. Fifth, in the horizon line category, the below
eye level image results have two anomalies. Two images were evaluated having a below eye
level viewpoint. Both these images had uncharacteristically high horizon lines, resulting in to
spikes in the analysis charts. In addition, both these images were evaluated with low scores of
2 and 3. It can be concluded that the high horizon line contributed to the low evaluation of
image quality. In the eye level images the majority of images, 73%, occur between the range
from 10-35%. In the above eye level images most of the images occur between the range
from 30-50% and the bird’s eye level images occur in the 70-100% range. In the Vyonyx bird’s
eye images there were several examples of images constructed without a horizon line. The
elimination of the horizon line shortened the depth of the images, which resulted in a lower
evaluation score. Finally, the Vyonyx images used the ⅓ & ¼ grid division in only 53% of their
images. The overall evaluation of the analysis results shows similarities with the previous case
study groups. Yet, the conclusion can be drawn that the increased use of smaller image ratios,
the increased number of images outside the horizon line range for each viewpoint type and
the decreased use of the ⅓ & ¼ grid divisions is correlated to the decrease in the evaluation of
image quality.
In summary, this group of Vyonyx images show similarities with the results of the
previous case study analysis results and the information contributes to the identification of
fundamental principles in rendering. The following section will analyze the images of the
architectural visualization firm, Dbox.
34
3.6 Dbox
Dbox is a branding and creative agency based in New York and London. The office is
considered to be large in comparison to other well established architectural visualization
studios. The Dbox team consists of 50 members working across continents. Their work is
internationally recognized and sought out by some of the top Architectural offices in the
world. The office not only specializes in CGI, computer generated images, of architecture but
also offers print & signage design, interactive marketing and website development,
photography and real estate branding and marketing services. They create brands, books, 3d
interactive experiences, films and photographs. In focusing on their architectural
accomplishments, they have worked with such Architects as Richard Meier, Kengo Kuma,
Shigeru Ban and visualizations of New York’s “Ground Zero” project.
The name Dbox is an abbreviation of a class took by the founding partners called
“dialog box, Arch 372”, which studied computer visuals interactiveness and narrative ability.
The name describes “an idea about everything they couldn’t yet articulate but dreamed about
in a virtual world of un-built architecture and design.”8 In their rendering work there is
evidence of a strong inclination to center their scenes into a 1-point perspective, this focuses
their work, which is extremely clean, polished and sophisticated. Furthermore, their work
possesses a rigid and systematic approach to the rendering process. Dbox works in 3ds Max
and Adobe CS to process their final renderings, which approach a strong resemblance to
photorealism. Most of their renderings are presented as photographic snapshots and the level
of detail and quality is outstanding. Typically, it is very difficult to successfully represent
architecture photo-realistically. However, Dbox achieves this difficult task with a level of
photographic style and artistry that when viewing their rendered scenes it is difficult to
discern the real from the imagined. Their body of work includes architectural renderings that
are 100% CGI and others that are photo composited, which composite computer generated
images with photographic images into one image.
Based on Dbox’s expertise and the level of sophistication in their architectural

renderings, a body of their work was collected for analysis. A selection of 69 images were
collected for analysis. The following chart (figure 3.21) and image samples show a portion of
the data results. This information is followed by a group of data analysis charts.
8 Dbox website, http://www.dbox.com, December 2011.
35
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Dbox Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 11 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;9? Y Ext 100% EL B
Image 12 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: C0D Y Ext 33% AEL B
Image 13 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;?E Y Ext 100% EL A
Image 14 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;B: Y Ext 44% EL B
Image 15 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;?> N Ext 44% EL B
Image 16 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;?A Y Ext 100% AEL A
Image 17 L 9:;< =;> 9;=>?@A9: @;B N Int 33% BIRDS A
Image 18 L 9:;< E;< ?;@9BB<?> @;?> Y Ext 100% EL A
Image 19 P 9?;9 9@;? 9;9>E?=BA @;?= Y Ext 100% EL A
Image 20 P 9?;9 9@;? 9;9>E?=BA @;A Y Int 100% EL A
Image 21 P 9?;? <;> 9;?BB><> @;?> Y Ext 100% EL B
Image 22 P 9?;? 9@;< 9;99<?EE9 @;?A Y Int 100% EL A
Image 23 P 9?;? 9@;< 9;99<?EE9 @;:E Y Int 100% AEL B
Image 24 L 9>;? 9?;? 9;B<9>@:: @;:> Y Int 100% EL B
Image 25 L 9>;? <;? 9;<=>?E@< @;A Y Int 100% EL A
Image 26 L 9>;? 9?;? 9;B<9>@:: @;?< N Int 100% EL B
Image 27 L 9>;? 9?;? 9;B<9>@:: @;?< Y Int 100% EL B
Image 28 L 9>;? < ?;@?????? @;?< Y Ext 100% EL A
Image 29 P 9:;> A;> ?;:=<:9@: @;?= Y Ext 22% EL A
Image 30 L 9>;9 9?;? 9;B>:E@EE @;?= N Ext 50% AEL A
Figure 3.21, Dbox Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.22, Image 28, Dbox Figure 3.23, Image 19, Dbox
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Figure 3.24, Image 25, Dbox Figure 3.25, Image 20, Dbox
36
Dbox Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 69 Dbox case study images:
17
Image Type
17% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
83
Image Ratio
33
% of Images
25
15 17
7
3
0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
67
% of Images
23
10
0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
44
% of Images
22
13
7 8
3 3 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
30
Interior/Exterior
70
37
Horizon Line
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
25
20
% of Images
10 10
5
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
33 33
% of Images
17 17
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
67
% of Images
33
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
1/4 &1/3 Grid
50
38
As an industry standard, Dbox images are ranked among the highest in terms of
evaluative score, receiving an average score of 4.55 out of 5. The architectural renderings are
heavily based in realism and achieve the highest standard of technical & compositional quality.
Based on the analysis results, the images have many similar qualities as the MIR, Luxigon and
Labtop group of images.
Review of the analysis results shows few differences from the previous case studies.
First, like the majority of the images tested, 83% of the images are landscape image types.
Second, the majority of the images have an image ratio that falls between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6.
Followed by the next highest percentage of images whose image ratio is between 1:1.6 to 1:2.
Third, 67% of the images have an eye level viewpoint. Fourth, the building ratio percentages
are consistent with the previous case study groups, where 43% of the exterior images have a
building percentage ratio between 22-44%. While 30% of the interior images maintain a 100%
building ratio, an additional 14% of exterior images have a 100% building ratio. This type of
image typically is a close up view of a building entrance or detail. Fifth, the horizon line results
show that there were no below eye level images and that the majority of eye level images
have a horizon line range between 10-35%. The above eye level results show that 66% of the
images had the horizon line occur within the 20-40% range. However, 34% of the images fell
within the range between 40-60%. The above eye level images had a horizon line range
between 60-80%. Finally, the ⅓ & ¼ division grid shows that 50% of the images employ the
compositional guide.
In summary, this group of Dbox images show consistent similarities with the results of
the previous case study image analysis results and the information contributes to the
images of the architectural visualization firm, Kilograph.
39
3.7 Kilograph
Kilograph is an architectural visualization studio located in Venice Beach, California.

The studio is small but their clients are accomplished. They produce architectural renderings
for high-profile practices such as Morphosis, Skidmore Owings & Merril and Ateliers Jean
Nouvel. Some of their work includes such projects as: Emerson College, Morphosis; Shanghai
Meilong, SOM; London New Change Building, Jean Nouvel. Kilograph’s production talents
cover a range of mediums including visual materials, conceptual images and animations of
architectural ideas. These mediums offer Kilograph’s clients a comfortable spectrum of image
categories to choose from, which allows Kilograph to be involved in more of the architectural
design development process. The studio is interested in the collaborative approach to design
and visualization, which they practice with their clients. The office is made up of a team of
computer generated visual media experts that include, licensed architects, visual effects
designers, illustrators and animators.
In researching Kilograph, it is evident that the studio is interested in the experimental

aspects of visual graphic design. Their graphic design work challenges standards and
established formulas. This results in a plethora of interesting imagery that is constantly
changing and evolving, which is exciting. This same attitude carries into their architectural
renderings. Kilograph’s rendering work is stylized. Similar to Vyonyx, they rely heavily on
Rhinoceros 3D and 3ds Max to model and render the foundational elements of their images.
80% of the image production process is render driven, while 20% of the image production
process is image edited in Photoshop. In my opinion, the quality of their architectural
rendering work is well above average, yet fails to achieve a similar level of excellence in
rendering quality in comparison to other visualization studios such as MIR, LUXIGON and
Dbox. However, their body of work is well accomplished and warrants the following research
investigation. A selection of 31 images were collected for analysis. The following chart (figure
3.26) and image samples show a portion of the data results. This information is followed by a
group of data analysis charts.
40
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Kilograph Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:;< =;> 9;?:@<A>? A;B> Y Ext 22% EL >
Image 02 L 9@ ?;= 9;@B=><9@ A;@< N Int 100% EL @
Image 03 L 9@ ?;? 9;@9@9@9@ A;B: Y Ext 22% AEL @
Image 04 L 9@;< 9A 9;@< A;CC N Int 100% EL @
Image 05 P ?;? <;? 9;B>C9:@: A;C< Y Int 100% EL @
Image 06 L ?;? =;< 9;9C<?C9 A;C: N Int 100% AEL C
Image 07 L 9:;@ ?;? 9;:>:>:>< A;=B Y Ext 22% BIRDS C
Image 08 L 9:;@ ?;= 9;:<C@:?@ A;C9 Y Ext 22% EL @
Image 09 L 9:;> ?;? 9;::::::< A;>@ N Ext 33% AEL C
Image 10 L 9:;> ?;? 9;::::::< A;: N Ext 44% AEL C
Image 11 L 9:;> ?;? 9;::::::< A;@: N Int 66% EL C
Image 12 L 9@;9 ?;< 9;@>C:A=B A;> N Ext 66% AEL C
Image 13 L 9>;> ?;? 9;>:>:>:: A;:= N Ext 33% BIRDS C
Image 14 L 9>;@ ?;? 9;>>>>>>: A;@< N Int 100% EL C
Image 15 L 9:;< :;B B;:?C>@=@ A;B: Y Int 100% BEL @
Image 16 L 9:;: ?;< 9;<99C@AB A;>B N Int 100% EL C
Image 17 P ?;? >;: 9;<:<=><9 A;>C N Int 100% EL @
Image 18 L 9:;: ?;> 9;<@<C:=@ D0E Y Int 100% AEL @
Image 19 L 9:;: ?;> 9;<@<C:=@ A;B< Y Ext 66% EL @
Image 20 L 9:;< ?;> 9;<><=?@< A;B? Y Int 100% EL >
Figure 3.26, Kilograph Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Figure 3.27, Image 16, Kilograph Figure 3.28, Image 12, Kilograph
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.29, Image 20, Kilograph Figure 3.30, Image 14, Kilograph
41
Kilograph Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 31 Kilograph case study images:
10
Image Type
10% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
90
Image Ratio
55
% of Images
30
5 5 5
0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
55
% of Images
30
5 10
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
50
% of Images
20
15
10
5
0 0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
55
Interior/Exterior
45
42
Horizon Line
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
27 27 27
% of Images
19
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
33 33
% of Images
17 17
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
55
1/4 &1/3 Grid
55% No compositional element at a grid intersection 45
43
The average evaluation resulting from the image analysis for the Kilograph image is
3.65 out of 5. The general quality of the Kilograph rendering is good, but when compared
against the best images in the industry, they fail to reach the same level of quality. Although,
the quality of the images is not as excellent they are still better than 90% of the images in
circulation. Based on the results, the Kilograph image possess many similarities with the
previous case study groups.
Review of the analysis results show that 90% of the images are landscape and that the
majority of images have an image ratio between the range of 1:1.6 to 1:2. Furthermore, 55% of
the images are constructed from the eye level viewpoint. In addition, the majority of the
exterior images have a building percentage ratio between 22-44% of the image. The interior
images account for 50% of the building ratio images whose percentage is 100%. When
examining the horizon line category the information is consistent with previous case studies.
However, in the eye level horizon line chart there are 46% of the images that have a horizon
line range between 40-60%. This increase is a result of the increased number of interior
images in relationship to the entire group of images studied. Based on analysis, Interior
images have a horizon line range between 30-50%. This range can be applied to below eye
level, eye level and above eye level interior images. Finally, the ⅓ & ¼ division grid was used in
45% of the compositions.
In summary, this group of Kilograph images show consistent similarities with the
results of the previous case study image analysis results and the information contributes to the
images of the architectural visualization firm, RenderTaxi GbR.
44
3.8 RenderTaxi GbR
RenderTaxi is a fully operational computer generated media design studio who bring
Architectural visions to life and was started in 2004. The studio is located in Konigstrasse,
Germany, and concentrate the majority of their work in the digital production of images and
animations for European Architects. The studio is comprised of eight people, mostly Architects
and students of Architecture. Since 2004, RenderTaxi has produced more than 2000 rendered
images for projects worldwide. Their projects include: Dalian Sports Center, UN Studio; City
Quarter, Karlsplatz Stuttgart, BRT Architekten; Wisniowy Garden Project, Massimiliano Fuksas
Architetto. Additionally, they produce architectural renderings of private homes, office
buildings, luxury hotels, shopping centers, airports, stadiums, bridges, museums, schools, etc.
UN Studio is one of their main clients, but they work with hundreds of other Architecture
studios.
As stated on the website, ““RenderTaxi” stands for the dream to convert a Volkswagen
bus into a mobile office to create high quality computer-generated image art fast and directly
deliver it to the doorstep of their clients.”9 The goal of such a system is to strive for direct, fast
and continuous exchanges with their clients. In the development process of their renderings,
various styles emerge, “from an abstract and concept-oriented representation to a perfect
simulation of space and light in a photorealistic image.”10 In their images they aim to “portray
the nature, aesthetics and functionality of an object and surrounding space.”11 The
architectural imagery of RenderTaxi can be described as soft and semi-photorealistic, which
evoke a dreamlike atmosphere of the proposed architecture. Their renderings are close
enough to reality to understand the proposed concepts but maintain a level of imaginary
vision to not be confused with realism, which allows the viewer to not have to accept the
image as real.
The rendering tools that RenderTaxi uses are Rhinoceros 3D, Cinema 4D, V-Ray for C4D
or Next Limit Maxwell Render. For postproduction they rely on Adobe Photoshop, After Effects
or Premiere Pro. Their office is equipped with an in-house rendering farm, which handles all of
their computations. 218 of RenderTaxi’s images were collected for analysis. The following
chart (figure 3.31) show a portion of the data results.
9 RenderTaxi, about page, http://www.rendertaxi.de, December 2011.

10Felix Volland quote, founding partner; Fabio Schillaci, Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design Manual,
2009.
11 RenderTaxi, about page, http://www.rendertaxi.de, December 2011.
45
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
RenderTaxi Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 41 L 99:; <:; 9:=>;?9=@ A:>= Y Ext 22% AEL =
Image 42 L 99 <:; 9:BB<?;@B C0D N Ext 66% AEL B
Image 43 P @:? <:; 9:AE>9A=? A:?= Y Ext 22% BEL B
Image 44 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:B Y Ext 22% AEL B
Image 45 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:>@ Y Ext 22% AEL B
Image 46 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:>E Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 47 P @:? <:; 9:AE>9A=? A:B; Y Ext 44% EL ?
Image 48 P @:? <:; 9:AE>9A=? A:?; Y Ext 11% AEL B
Image 49 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:9; Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 50 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:>B N Int 100% EL ?
Image 51 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:>E Y Int 100% EL ?
Image 52 L 9A:= <:; 9:?@9=<@E A:>; Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 53 L 99:; <:; 9:=>;?9=@ A:>? Y Ext 22% EL ?
Image 54 L 99:; <:; 9:=>;?9=@ A:B= N Int 100% AEL ?
Image 55 P <:; ;:< 9:9?B?>@B A:>? Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 56 P <:; ;:B 9:9@<= A:9; Y Ext 22% EL ?
Image 57 P @:? <:; 9:AE>9A=? A:9@ Y Ext 55% EL B
Image 58 L E:@ <:; 9:>@EB<?< A:B Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 59 P <:; ;:9 9:>B=EA9; A:>< Y Int 100% EL B
Image 60 L 99:; <:; 9:=>;?9=@ A:? Y Ext 22% EL =
Figure 3.31, RenderTaxi Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.32, Image 45, RenderTaxi Figure 3.33, Image 41, RenderTaxi
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.34, Image 49, RenderTaxi Figure 3.35, Image 53, RenderTaxi
46
RenderTaxi Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 218 RenderTaxi case study images:
Image Type 20
35% Portrait Images
20% Square Images 35 45
Image Ratio
45
% of Images
25
20
10
0 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
65
% of Images
30
5 0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
40
% of Images
20 20
5 5 5 5
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
20
Interior/Exterior
80
47
Horizon Line
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
62
% of Images
22
8 8
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
33
% of Images
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
15
1/4 &1/3 Grid
85
48
The average evaluation resulting from the image analysis for the RenderTaxi image is
3.65 out of 5. Again, the general quality of the RenderTaxi rendering is really good. Based on
the results, the images possess many similarities with the previous case study groups.
Review of the analysis results show that RenderTaxi includes more variety when
choosing the image type, 45% of the images are landscape, 35% are portraits and 20% are
square images. The square image type is the least commonly used image. The majority of
images have an image ratio between the range of 1:1.2 to 1:1.6. Based on the analysis, the
remaining information is similar to the previous case studies. The only inconsistency is in the
image ratio. It can be concluded that the image ratio has a direct correlation to the final
quality of the image. The following section will analyze the images of the architectural
visualization firm, Studio AMD.
3.9 Studio AMD
Studio AMD is a world leading visual animation studio that focuses on architectural
visuals with the intent to produce an image that captures the architectural intentions of the
un-built environment. They are located in New York and recently received the 2010 American
Society of Architectural Illustrators Hugh Ferriss award while working with some of the leading
Architects in the world. Their work includes projects such as: 360 Tenth Ave. Tower, Steven
Holl; Proposed West Side Tower, Kohn Pederson Fox; Emirates Tower, Skidmore Owings &
Merrill; Hermitage-Guggenheim Museum, Studio Daniel Libeskind.
Studio AMD identify themselves as digital artists. Studio, by definition, is an artists

workroom, or an artist and his or her employees who work within that studio, and AMD refers
to Advanced Media Design. In their rendered images, they aim to expose the “vision of how
structures will occupy their environments and how the occupants of that environment will
experience its character.”12 The rendering quality of their images is extremely polished and
present a photorealistic vision. Studio AMD uses 3ds Max, V-Ray and Photoshop tools in their
image processing, a standard rendering process. In their images they achieve a high level of
artistic photorealism. Their renderings execute beautiful and balanced color palettes, which
are rich and subtle in their use. Their images are striking and represent the right moment
captured in photography. Based on their work, a selection of 85 images were collected for
analysis. The following chart (figure 3.36) and image samples show a portion of the data
results. This information is followed by a group of data analysis charts.
12 Studio AMD, about page, http://www.studioamd.com, December 2011.
49
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Studio AMD Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 21 L 9:9 ;:< =:><?<=9; @:A Y Ext 44% EL ?
Image 22 L ?:9 ? =:=B @:? N Int 100% BEL A
Image 23 P ? ; =:C? @:@? N Ext 33% EL ;
Image 24 P ? ; =:C? @:= N Ext 44% AEL ?
Image 25 L ?:> ? =:=; @:= N Ext 11% EL ?
Image 26 P ?:> ? =:=; D0E Y Ext 77% AEL ;
Image 27 P ?:C ? =:@; @:C9 N Ext 11% EL ?
Image 28 L ?:9 ? =:=B @:A9 Y Ext 11% AEL ;
Image 29 P ? ;:; =:=ABABAB @:=C Y Ext 33% AEL ?
Image 30 L >:< ? =:?9 @:; N Ext 33% AEL ?
Image 31 P ? A:> =:A?=A?=; @:@9 Y Ext 44% EL A
Image 32 SQ ? ? = @:; Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 33 P ? ;:> =:@BA9C<9 @:;> Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 34 P ? ;:C =:=<@;>BC @:=C Y Ext 22% EL ;
Image 35 P ? ;:; =:=ABABAB @:=? Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 36 P ? ;:C =:=<@;>BC @:C Y Ext 33% AEL ?
Image 37 L >:< ? =:?9 @:C? Y Ext 33% EL ;
Image 38 P ?:B ? =:=C @:= Y Ext 22% AEL ?
Image 39 L >:9 ? =:?B @:CB Y Ext 22% AEL ?
Image 40 P ? A:B =:A99999< @:@> Y Ext 22% EL ?
Figure 3.36, Studio AMD Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.37, Image 30, Studio AMD Figure 3.38, Image 25, Studio AMD
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.39, Image 39, Studio AMD Figure 3.40, Image 28, Studio AMD
50
Studio AMD Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 85 Studio AMD case study images:
Image Type 15
50% Portrait Images 35
15% Square Images
50
Image Ratio
45
% of Images
20
15 15
5
0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
52
% of Images
38
5 5
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
30
20
% of Images
15 15 15
5
0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
85
51
Horizon Line
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
36
27
% of Images
18
9 9
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
39
% of Images
25
12 12 12
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
1/4 &1/3 Grid
70
52
The average StudioAMD image had an evaluation of 4.45 out of 5. Upon review of the
analysis results there were several differences identified. First, unlike the previous case studies
the majority of images are portraits, 50%. Landscape images account for 35% of the images
studied and 15% of the images were a square image type. These results are glaringly different
from the previous cases. Second, the majority of images in the image ratio category shifted to
small ratios. The majority of images have a ratio of 1:1.1 to 1:1.4. It is important to note that
based on the analysis, the ideal image ratio for a portrait image is smaller than the ideal ratio
of a landscape image. Third, 52% of the images are constructed at the eye level viewpoint.
Fourth, the building ratio results are similar to the previous cases, where the majority of
images, 65%, have a 22-44% building ratio. Fifth, in the horizon line category, the only below
eye level image had a horizon line at 50%, which affected the normal results. Also, most of the
images depicted tall buildings, which resulted in lowered horizon lines for both the eye level
and above eye level categories. Finally, 70% of the images used the ⅓ & ¼ division grid.
In summary, this group of StudioAMD images exemplify the highest standard in architectural
renderings and the information contributes to the identification of fundamental principles in
rendering. The following section will analyze the images of the architectural visualization firm,
ArteFactory.
3.10 ArteFactory
ArteFactory is one of the premiere architectural visualization studios in the world. The
studio was founded in 1999 and is located in Paris, France. There are seven partners and
twenty freelance artists. ArteFactory’s work is recognized world wide, with their architectural
images continually being published. Their work includes: Stavros Niarchos Foundatioin
Cultural Center, Athens, Renzo Piano; Clement Blanchet, OMA; Beekman Tower, New York,
Frank Gehry; Louvre Abu Dhabi, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, Beijing Olympic Stadium, Beijing, Herzog
& de Meuron. The studio uses the standard tools of 3ds Max, V-Ray & Photoshop.
In their work they “try out new things in every project, avoiding a “copy and paste”
scheme from previous projects.”13 This method of production creates a diverse portfolio of
work, artistic and constantly new, which is evident upon review of their body of work. This
quality of inventiveness is difficult to attain, but their pursuit is admirable.
Based on the expertise of ArteFactory 66 images were collected for analysis. The
following chart (figure 3.41) and image samples show a portion of the data results.
13 Fabio Schillaci, Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design Manual, 2009.
53
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
ArteFactory Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 SQ 9 9 : ;<=> Y Int 100% EL 9
Image 02 L :; ?<@ =<:>AB:A ;<A Y Ext 11% AEL 9
Image 03 L :; A<C =<@A:9>CB ;<AC N Ext 11% AEL 9
Image 04 L @ 9<= :<:9AC?@= ;<=> N Ext 44% EL ?
Image 05 P 9<= ?<@ :<:A;?A?C ;<A: Y Ext 22% EL 9
Image 06 L :; 9 = ;<:= Y Ext 22% EL 9
Image 07 L ><= 9<= :<AC?@:9? ;<:C Y Ext 22% EL ?
Image 08 L ><A 9<= :<?;AC?@= ;<=> Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 09 L B 9<= :<>A;>@B= ;<@@ Y Ext 33% BIRDS 9
Image 10 L 9<= C<= ;<@A?:?@A ;<AA Y Ext 22% EL 9
Image 11 L ><9 9<= :<??=A;>> ;<=> Y Ext 22% EL ?
Image 12 L >@B=A ;<:C Y Ext 33% EL 9
Image 14 L B<A 9<= :<>CC?@:9 ;<:= Y Ext 11% EL ?
Image 15 L :;<: ?<: =<?@A?:?@ ;<=@ Y Ext 22% AEL 9
Image 16 L B<A 9<= :<>CC?@:9 ;<:= Y Ext 44% EL 9
Image 17 L > Y Ext 22% EL 9
Image 20 L :; ?<B =<;?;C:@A ;<=C Y Ext 100% EL 9
Figure 3.41, ArteFactory Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.42, Image 06, ArteFactory Figure 3.43, Image 12, ArteFactory
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.44, Image 20, ArteFactory Figure 3.45, Image 17, ArteFactory
54
ArteFactory Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 66 ArteFactory case study images:
55
Image Type
5% Portrait Images
5% Square Images
90
Image Ratio
30
25
20
% of Images
10
5 5 5
0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
75
% of Images
20
0 5
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
40
% of Images
20
15
10 10
5
0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
5
Interior/Exterior
5% of Images were Interior 95
55
Horizon Line
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
40 40
% of Images
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
% of Images
25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
10
1/4 &1/3 Grid
90
56
The average ArteFactory image had an evaluation of 4.75 out of 5. 90% of the images
are landscape scenes. The image ratio range is between 1:1.4 to 1:2.5. 75% of the images are
constructed from the eye level viewpoint. 70% of the images have a building percentage
range between 22-44% of the image. 95% of the images were exterior scenes. The eye level
horizon line images occur within a range from 10-35%, consistent with the premiere images
from Luxigon and MIR. Finally, 90% of the images incorporate the use of the ⅓ & ¼ division
grids in the composition of their rendered images.
In summary, this group of ArteFactory images exemplify the absolute highest
standard in architectural renderings and the information contributes to the identification of
fundamental principles in rendering. The following section will analyze the images of the
architectural visualization firm, Evermotion.
3.11 Evermotion
Evermotion, founded in 1998, is an online store that offer bundles of downloadable

and purchasable object and texture resources that speed up production times for CG artists.
They specialize in the production of 3d objects such as designer furniture, plants, vehicles, etc.,
which can be imported into 3d modeling and animation programs such as Cinema4d, 3ds Max
and Maya. In addition, the Evermotion portal is a forum for a community of CG artists to post
their CG work and exchange information. The Evermotion group offer multiple online
tutorials , which intricately describe the nuances of 3d modeling and rendering and are
intended to improve the quality and speed of the overall process. In this community of artists,
there is a collection of outstanding architectural renderings that span over 10 years. Also, in
this collection, the evolution of the rendered image comes to light. The posted work spans the
spectrum of rendering from photorealism to fantasy. Within this community there are several
acclaimed CG artist such as Alex Roman, author of “the 3rd and the 7th,” whose artistic mastery
of 3ds Max as a visual animation tool is at times unbelievable.
Based on the expertise of the Evermotion group, 168 images were collected for
analysis. The following chart (figure 3.46) and image samples show a portion of the data
results.
57
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Evermotion Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 41 P 9:;< 9=;> 9;?@9A=BB @;?> Y Ext 77% BEL A
Image 42 P 9:;< 9=;> 9;?@9A=BB @;C9 Y Ext 44% EL C
Image 43 SQ 9=;> 9=;> 9 @;C N Int 100% BEL A
Image 44 P 9:;< 9=;> 9;?@9A=BB @;=B Y Ext 33% BEL C
Image 45 L 9=;> B;= 9;:<A:>BB @;A< Y Ext 77% EL A
Image 46 L 9A;? B;> 9;C>CC@C: @;99 Y Ext 44% BEL C
Image 47 L 9A;? B;> 9;C>CC@C: @;9C Y Ext 22% BEL C
Image 48 L 9A;? B;> 9;C>CC@C: @;== Y Int 100% BEL C
Image 49 L 9A;? B;> 9;C>CC@C: @;=B Y Int 100% EL C
Image 50 L 9:;< B;= ?;@9?@AB? @;?C N Int 100% BEL A
Image 51 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;?C N Ext 66% BEL A
Image 52 P 9:;< 99;9 9;C@AC@AC @;?< Y Int 66% BEL A
Image 53 P 9:;< 99;9 9;C@AC@AC @;== Y Int 100% BEL A
Image 54 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;A< N Int 100% BEL A
Image 55 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;A= Y Int 100% EL A
Image 56 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;A N Int 100% BEL A
Image 57 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;A< Y Int 100% EL A
Image 58 L =;= ? 9;:C @;C Y Ext 77% EL =
Image 59 L 99;9 :;> 9;:@B:>C< @;? N Ext 22% EL A
Image 60 L 9A;? >;C 9;A>A<=:B @;?C Y Ext 66% BEL A
Figure 3.46, Evermotion Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.47, Image 42, Evermotion Figure 3.48, Image 48, Evermotion
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 3.49, Image 44, Evermotion Figure 3.50, Image 46, Evermotion
58
Evermotion Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 168 Evermotion case study images:
18
Image Type
61% Landscape Images 21
21% Portrait Images
18% Square Images
61
Image Ratio
38
% of Images
21
18
12
7
4
0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
55
% of Images
32
12
1
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
28 30
20
% of Images
12 10
0 0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
25
Interior/Exterior
75
59
Horizon Line
39
31
% of Images
15 15
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
57
% of Images
14 14 14
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
41
% of Images
30
15
6
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
1/4 &1/3 Grid
70
60
The average Evermotion image had an evaluation of 4.1 out of 5. These images depict
a truly photorealistic representation of architecture and nature. The subsequent information is
a synopsis of the Evermotion image analysis. Examining the image type, results shows that
61% of the images are landscape scenes, which is 25% less than the previous cases. The main
increase was in the square image type, which increased from the 2% average to 18% of the
combined images. Furthermore, the majority of images have an image ratio within the 1:1.4 to
1:1.6 range. The increased number of portrait images impacts the image ratio results as
previously stated. The viewpoint results show that there is an increase in the number of below
eye level images. This chosen viewpoint is similar to the majority of images by the Luxigon
and Labtop offices. The below eye level viewpoint is not the common viewpoint to construct
an image from, but it is effective and offers an interesting alternative to viewing the
architectural scene. The building ratio results are congruent with the previous cases. In the
horizon line category, one difference occur. The majority of the eye level images horizon lines
occur between 40-50%. This increase in the horizon line percentage can partly be attributed
to the increase in square image types and the number of interior images positioned at the eye
level viewpoint. Also, there is an increased number in eye level images, with horizon lines
positioned at 50%, that received low evaluations and resulted in this result oddity. Finally, 70%
of the images use the ⅓ & ¼ division grid to identify major compositional elements in the
rendered image.
In summary, this group of Evermotion images exemplify a high standard in
architectural renderings and the information contributes to the identification of fundamental
principles in rendering. The following section will summarize the average image analysis of all
of the case study groups, which include; MIR, Luxigon, Labtop, Vyonyx, Dbox, Kilograph,
Rendertaxi, StudioAMD, ArteFactory and Evermotion.
3.12 Contemporary Analysis Summary
After completing the rendering analysis of each contemporary group, certain aspects
of the research came to light. First, there are certain testing variables that aren’t dependent of
other variables. For example, the Image Type, Image Ratio, Viewpoint, Ext/Int, Building Ratio,
and ⅓s and ¼s Grid are not affected categories, which stabilizes the information when
comparing it against other data charts, making it easy to find accurate percentages. The
results of these categories are as follows.
61
Image Type Averages
The average percentages of all of the 10 case study groups in determining the Image
Type is as follows:
17 6
76.7% Landscape Images
16.9% Portrait Images
6.4% Square Images
77
Image Ratio Averages
28.3
24
% of Images
17
9.2 8.5
6.2
3.6
0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
The averaged results are fairly consistent with the individual firms image ratios, the
majority of the images range between 1:1.4 thru 1:2
Viewpoint Averages
52.8
% of Images
25.2
15.7
6.3
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio Averages
27.8
22
% of Images
18.3
12
6.7 5.5
2.1 1.1 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
62
Horizon Line Averages
33.3
% of Images
21.6 20.6
13.4
5 6.1
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
28.9
21 22
% of Images
16.5
6 5.6
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
25.6 24.4
% of Images
14.6
12.2
8.6 7.9
5
1 0.7 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
42.5
% of Images
30.9
22.9
0 0 0 0 1.3 0 2.4
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
63
Interior/Exterior
24
76.1% of Images were Exterior

23.9% of Images were Interior
76
1/4 &1/3 Grid 31

69.4% Compositional element at a grid intersection
30.6% No compositional element at a grid intersection
69
The contemporary analysis summary takes the average results from all of the 1,225
images from the contemporary groups and reveals several key characteristics and similarities
shared between the images from the different architectural visualization firms. The first
average, reveals that the majority of architectural rendered images are landscape scenes,
comprising of 76.7% of all the images analyzed. The portrait images accounts for 16.9% of the
total images and the square image type accounts for 6.4%. This information means that the
landscape rendering is the most common image type and one can assume that this image
type is preferred because it is the most effective way of depicting an architectural rendering.
Furthermore, one can assume that the square image type is the most limiting of the three
types, in terms of expressing the architecture. Second, when examining the image ratio
average results, it becomes clear that the most common image ratio range is 1:1.6 to 1:2 with
28.3% of the total images. The second most common image ratio range is 1:1.4 to 1:1.6, with
24% of the total images. The majority of portrait images occur In the second image ratio
group. Third, the viewpoint average results indicate that the most common viewpoint in
architectural renderings is taken from eye level, with 52.8% of the total images. The above eye
level viewpoint accounts for 25.2% of the images, the below eye level viewpoints has 15.7% of
the images and the bird’s eye viewpoint accounts for 6.3% of the total images. This tells us
that most rendered images are constructed around the eye level viewpoint and that most of
the aerial scenes are depicted from the above eye level viewpoint. The below eye level
viewpoint is not practiced in most of the studied firms, but the point of view is effective and
the difference between it and eye level is very small. With less than 7% use, the bird’s eye level
is not common. There are several factors that contribute to this. The construction of a macro
scene is more time consuming and the degree of difficulty is higher that the other viewpoint
types. Fourth, the building ratio average results show that 27.8% of the total images have a
64
building percentage of 100%. This primarily accounts for the interior rendered images, which
account for 23.9% of all the images. Of the total images, 76.1% are exterior scenes. In this
group of exterior scenes the majority of the images have a building ratio that falls between the
range from 22-44%. This result is consistent with the individual analysis from each separate
firm. The conclusion can be drawn that when constructing an exterior rendering, the ideal
building percentage of the entire scene is between 22-44% range and when constructing an
interior scene the building dictates the building ratio. Fifth, the horizon line average results
show that the highest percent, 33%, of below eye level images have a 20-30% horizon line.
Overall the majority of below eye level images have the horizon line occur within the 10-35%
range. Interior images have a higher horizon line range between 30-50%. In the eye level
images, the highest percent, 28.9%, have the horizon line occur in the 20-30% range. Overall,
the majority of eye level images occur in the 10-35% range, with the interior eye level images
having a 30-50% horizon line range. In above eye level images the majority of images have
the horizon line occur in the 30-50% range. The results from the bird’s eye level images show
that the majority of images have the horizon line occur in the 60-90% range. These results tell
us the ideal ranges in which the horizon line occurs for each specific viewpoint. For example, if
the rendering was constructed from the eye level viewpoint then the ideal horizon line range
would be 10-35%, and within this range, 20-30% would be best. Finally, ⅓ &¼ division grid
averages show that 69.4% of the images use the grid to identify major focal points or
compositional elements. This tells us that the majority of constructed renderings produced
from leading visualization firms use the grids as a guideline when constructing architectural
renderings.
The following chapter 4 will present 4 historical architecture visualization artists and,
through the established process, will analyze their images and process the analysis results in
order to identify similarities and differences between each of the artists. Also, the average
results will be used to compare with the results from this chapter.
65
Chapter 4 I Historical Rendering Analysis
This chapter focuses on the image analysis of four groups of work, which are
comprised of three key historic figures body of work in architectural rendering; Paul Stevenson
Oles, Frank Lloyd Wright, Giovanni Piranesi; and an archived collection of influential
perspectivists work, such as Joseph Gandy and Sir John Soane. These figures have contributed
to the history of perspective rendering and warrant investigation. In this chapter, a collection
of images will be analyzed using the established grid and data collection chart system. Each
section will present analytical charts describing the data collected. Following the four
sections, a summary will compare similarities and differences in the information attained.
4.1 Introduction
The technological advancements of the computer in Architecture over the last decade
allow practitioners of Architecture to produce architectural renderings in fractions of the time
that it took just 10 years ago. The geometric accuracy of computer aided drafting and
modeling software make constructing a precise perspective scene a simple and insignificant
act, which results in perspective renderings becoming increasingly easier and quicker to
produce. The ease at which today’s perspective renderings are produced makes it easy to
overlook how difficult and time consuming it was in the recent past to construct similar
perspective drawings. While, it is easy to take for granted the speed and efficiency at which
today’s computer generated architectural renderings are produced, it is important to realize
that today’s images have a history.
Prior to CGI, the camera and the photograph there was the art of perspective. This art,
governed by a set of rules, was practiced for centuries by artists and architects. With the
establish rules of perspective, artists and architects over the centuries have produced
thousands of paintings, pictorial images and architectural renderings. Although extremely
time consuming, perspective rendering in architecture flourished in the 18th, 19th and early
20th centuries, leaving a body of historic work that is tremendous. Over these past centuries,
hundreds of architectural perspective renderings have been archived in historically preserved
collections. Since the Renaissance, several influential figures have been identified as leaders in
perspective drawing. Their work will be presented in the following sections.
66
4.2 Paul Stevenson Oles
Paul Stevenson Oles is a practicing architect who specializes in architectural

perspective renderings. He’s been described as “the dean of architectural illustrators in
America.”1 Over his career he’s co-founded the American Society of Architectural Illustrators,
written two books on drawing, won the Hugh Ferriss Memorial Prize and produced a
substantial body of perspective rendering work, while working with Architects such as I.M. Pei,
Moshe Safdie and Cesar Pelli. His books, “Drawing The Future” and “Architectural Illustration”
are widely regarded as essential writings on the topic of architectural illustration and are two
of his biggest contributions to the existing body of knowledge.
In Oles perspective works, his understanding of architectural ideas are so precisely

represented that they are interchangeable with the final photograph of the same perspective
(see figure 4.01 & 4.02). It is evident that Oles sees and represents the building in its context.
His representations accurately contextualize and place the architecture and it is not common
to find examples of his work that show the architecture in isolation. Furthermore, Oles ability
to successfully communicate architectural ideas clearly and dramatically has made him one of
the leading architectural renderers of the twentieth century. In addition to his perspective
rendering success, Oles has also had a successful career as a teacher at Yale, Harvard and MIT.
While most of his work was produced through traditional drawing methods, Oles also
incorporated digital medium into his recent work. Based on the outstanding achievements of
Oles’ perspective renderings and his contributions to architectural history, a collection of his
architectural renderings were ascertained to further investigate in the following section. The
following chart (figure 4.03) show the statistical variables that were measured.
Figure 4.01 Figure 4.02
1 http://www.psoles.com/bio-page
67
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
OLES Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:; <:= >:;<>=?9= @:;9 N Int 100% EL ?
Image 02 L A:< B:< ;:@9<A=<= @:;C Y Ext 33% EL =
Image 03 L A:B C:C >:;;@CCA; @:>; Y Ext 22% AEL =
Image 04 L A:= <:C >:B>CA>@B @:;B Y Ext 66% EL =
Image 05 L 9:; =:A >:?9A9?@= @:>C Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 06 L A:= =:A >:<>@><A= @:;= Y Ext 33% EL =
Image 07 L A:C C:< >:;C<?>=9 @:>? Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 08 L A:< C >:?C>B;9< @:>= Y Ext 66% EL B
Image 09 SQ 9 9 > @:?? Y Int 100% EL B
Image 10 L A:B <:; >:=><>;A @:;= Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 11 L A:C <:B >:=>=<;= @:>9 Y Int 100% EL B
Image 12 L A:< 9:B >:>B;9=C> @:>= N Int 100% EL B
Image 13 L A:? <:> >:=;B=A@; @:>C Y Ext 33% EL =
Image 14 L A:B <:; >:=><>;A @:>9 Y Ext 33% EL =
Image 15 L A:B <:C >:B@;A9=> @:;= Y Ext 33% EL =
Image 16 L A:C C:= >:;A????? @:;C Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 17 L A:C <:= >:BA;?@CC @:;C Y Ext 33% EL ?
Image 18 P A:9 C:B >:?;B?;B? @:@< Y Ext 33% AEL =
Image 19 P A:C =:; >:9<=?9B< @:> Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 20 P A:A <:C >:BCC<>>A @:@< Y Ext 44% EL B
Figure 4.03, Paul Stevenson Oles, Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 4.04, Image 03, Paul Stevenson Oles Figure 4.05, Image 14, Paul Stevenson Oles
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Figure 4.06, Image 16, Paul Stevenson Oles Figure 4.07, Image 06, Paul Stevenson Oles
68
Oles Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 31 Oles case study images:
15 5
Image Type
15% Portrait Images
5% Square Images
80
Image Ratio
40
35
% of Images
10
5 5 5
0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
90
% of Images
10
0 0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
55
% of Images
20
10 10
5
0 0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
80
69
Horizon Line
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
44
39
% of Images
11
6
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
10
1/4 & 1/3 Grid
90
70
The architectural drawings of Oles are meticulously crafted and beautiful
representations of form and space. The average evaluation for Oles images were 4.3 out of 5.
The analysis information shows similar results to the previous contemporary case study
images. However, there are a few differences, which will be explained.
First, 80% of the architectural renderings were landscape scenes. These results are
consistent with the 76.7% average from the summary results of Chapter 3. Second, in
examining the image ratio results we find that the majority of images have an image ratio
range between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6. This ratio range is lower than the average results from Chapter 3.
Also, there is an increase in the 1:1.2 to 1:1.4 range, which is a differing result. Third, 90% of the
images were constructed at the eye level viewpoint. These results see an increase of 40% in
comparison to the average results from Chapter 3. It can be assumed that this increase in eye
level images is attributed to the rules of perspective, a process that typically starts with the
construction of an eye level viewpoint. Fourth, the building ratio results show the majority of
exterior images having a building percentage between 22-44%, in this group of images the
33% range accounted for 55% of the images. These results are similar to the averages from
Chapter 3. Fifth, the horizon line results show that the majority of eye level images have the
horizon line occur in the range from 10-30%. In the above eye level chart the horizon line
occurs between 10-20%, which is different from the average results from Chapter 3. Based on
the above eye level images, it is determined that these viewpoints were positioned above eye
level, but only a few degrees above eye level. This causes the image horizon line attributes to
be more congruent with the eye level horizon line ranges, resulting in the lower horizon line
range. Finally, the ⅓ & ¼ division grid results show that 90% of the images implemented the
use of the division grids in the composition of the image.
In summary, the overall quality of the images studied is exceptional. The masterful
hand drawings add to the depth of this research investigation. The images provided value and
the information contributes to the identification of fundamental principles in rendering a
successful architectural image. The following section will analyze the architectural renderings
of the master architect, Frank Lloyd Wright.
71
4.3 Frank Lloyd Wright
There’s not much that can be written about Frank Lloyd Wright that hasn’t already
been written. He’s one of the single most influential Architects of the twentieth century. His
name and work is recognized well beyond the architectural world and his legacy and influence
in architecture will impact future Architects for generations. While Wright produced several
hundred built works he also created several thousand perspective drawings that were used as
tools to develop architectural ideas and to present architectural images as realistic
representations to clients. Wright’s mastery of geometry and ability to precisely construct
perspective views has left a legacy of architectural perspective renderings found in the Frank
Lloyd Wright Memorial Foundation. The catalogue spans a life-work of nearly three-quarters
of a century.
In Wright’s perspective renderings two fundamental characteristics are identified.

First, that the image is an instrument which symbolizes and represents new ideas and visions
of architecture and, second, that the perspective rendering is an instrument of research
intended to produce a concrete definition and a graphic translation of an idea. In his drawings
Wright gives testimony to his direct understanding of the reality of nature. “Wright studies the
site in its most diverse and minute characteristics -
the ground, the landscape, the vegetation and
misses little, if nothing. The comparison between
the completed work and the perspective drawing
does not tell us whether it was the site which
suggested the building or the architectural
framework, which gives expression to the
qualities of the site.”2 Furthermore, in these
perspective renderings, Wright reveals with great
accuracy the vision of his architectural ideas,
clearly visible in figures 4.08.
Based on Wright’s influence and

substantial collection of perspective renderings,
135 images were selected for analysis. The
following chart (figure 4.09) shows a sample of the Figure 4.08, FLW Rendering (above); “Falling Water”
photo, Hedrich-Blessing (below)
data collected.
2 Alberto Izzo, Camillo Gubitosi, Frank Lloyd Wright: Three-Quarters of a Century of Drawings. Florence, 1976.
72
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
FLW Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:; ;:< <:=>?@==A >:<= Y Ext 22% AEL 9
Image 02 P A:B ;:9 <:B >:BB Y Ext 77% EL ;
Image 03 L 9:A ;:9 <:9ABC9=< >:B Y Ext 22% BEL 9
Image 04 L 9:= B B:C9 >:A Y Ext 44% EL A
Image 05 L 9 ;:A <:A=>9CCB >:99 Y Ext 33% EL ;
Image 06 L 9:= ;:? <:A@<9;C9 >:@@ Y Ext 33% AEL A
Image 07 L A:9 ;:= <:B<@B<@B >:>= Y Ext 22% EL A
Image 08 L 9:= B:A B:;=9 >:<= Y Ext 33% BEL 9
Image 09 P 9:@ ;:; <:@?@?@?= >:<C Y Ext 33% BEL A
Image 10 L 9:@ ;:@ <:999999@ >:;; Y Ext 22% AEL ;
Image 11 P A:C A <:B >:>9 N Ext 66% EL ;
Image 12 L 9:@ ;:B9 <:=B;>=@? >:B9 Y Ext 33% BEL 9
Image 13 L A:? ; <:@;;;;;; >:>= Y Ext 22% EL A
Image 14 L 9:9 B:; B:;?<;>A; >:C; Y Ext 33% BIRDS 9
Image 15 L 9:; B:9 B::A Y Int 100% EL A
Image 16 L 9 B B:9 >:B9 Y Ext 33% EL A
Image 17 L A:A <:C B:AAAAAAA >:; Y Ext 33% BEL A
Image 18 L 9:@ B:@ B:<9;CA@B >:9 Y Ext 33% EL A
Image 19 L 9:A B:B B:A9A9A99 >:B9 Y Ext 11% BEL A
Image 20 L 9:; B:< B:9B;C>?9 >:@ Y Ext 22% EL ;
Figure 4.09, Frank Lloyd Wright, Data Chart
HL
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
Figure 4.10, Image 02, Figure 4.11, Image 14, Frank Lloyd Wright
Frank Lloyd Wright
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 4.12, Image 07, Figure 4.13, Image 03, Frank Lloyd Wright
Frank Lloyd Wright
73
Frank Lloyd Wright Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 37 Frank Lloyd Wright case study images:
Image Type 15
15% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
85
Image Ratio
35
% of Images
20 20
10 10
5
0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
50
% of Images
30
15
5
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
45
% of Images
30
5 5 5 5
0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
Interior/Exterior
95% of Images were Exterior 5
5% of Images were Interior 95
74
Horizon Line
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
28
20
% of Images
12
10
0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
33
28
% of Images
20 18
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
5
1/4 &1/3 Grid
95
75
The data analysis of the Frank Lloyd Wright perspective drawings show many
similarities with the previous contemporary case studies and the Oles results. First, in
accordance with the averages, 85% of the images are landscape. Second, the image ratio
results show that the majority of images fall between the 1:2 to 1:2.5 range, which is different
from the previous results. This higher aspect ratio accentuates the landscape frame. The
assumption can be made that Wright wanted to accentuate the horizontal elements of the
building, framed in the landscape setting. Third, the majority of images, 50%, are constructed
from the eye level viewpoint. In addition, 30% of the images are from the below eye level
viewpoint. This viewpoint is not common but does produce dramatic perspectives. Fourth,
the building ratio results show that 75% of the images have a building percentage between
22-33%. These percentages are consistent with previous research. Fifth, the horizon line
results show that the below eye level images have the horizon line occurring between 10-30%.
The majority of eye level images have the horizon line between the 20-35% range. In the
above eye level images most of the horizon lines occur in the 30-50% range. Also, the bird’s
eye level images all occur in the 80-90% horizon line range. These results fit into the 60-90%
average from the contemporary images. Finally, the ⅓ & ¼ division results show that 95% of
the architectural renderings use the ⅓ & ¼ division grid in the compositional construction of
the image.
In summary, the quality of the images is exceptional and the masterful hand drawings
further add to the depth of this research investigation. The images provided value and the
information contributes to the identification of fundamental principles in rendering a
successful architectural image. The following section will analyze the architectural perspective
drawings from a collection of 19th & early 20th century architects.
76
4.4 The Great Perspectivists
“The Great Perspectivists”, written by Gavin Stamp, is a collection of hand drawn

architectural perspective renderings housed in the British Architectural Library in The Royal
Institute of British Architects, RIBA. The collection is the largest and most comprehensive body
of architectural designs in the world, with a quarter of a million drawings from the renaissance
to the present day. In “The Great Perspectivists,” over a hundred selected architectural
renderings from the British Architectural Library are presented. The survey of historical
drawings span from the early 18th century to the mid 20th century. They include the work of
notable historic figures in Architecture, such as, Giovanni Piranesi, James Wyatt, Sir John
Soane, Joseph Michael Gandy and John Martin.
The formatting of “The Great Perspectivists,” presents a loose chronological account of

perspective renderings. Each rendering is accompanied with a description of the works author
and a detailed contextual explanation of the time and conditions in which the rendering was
created. According to Gavin Stamp, during the 18th and 19th century, architectural perspective
drawing flourished. In these time periods, Architects and Artists achieved considerable
virtuosity and their ability to create intricate renderings were continually being crafted. It is
commonly understood that during these times, perspective was considered to be a non-
essential part of the architect’s job, since it was a time consuming and non-precise tool in
turning a design into a building. Although these architectural renderings were not necessary
in the building communication processes, it can be argued that the perspective was “a bridge
between the architect and an often uncomprehending public, and, as such, is as useful today
as ever.”3 The thinking of the time, felt that if clients were to invest large sums of money on the
building design, then they were legitimately entitled to accurate and realistic representations
in the form of perspective renderings, which were separate from the types of drawings which
suffices for architects and contractors, such as orthographic and descriptive axonometric
drawings. Therefore, the dominant thought was that the perspective renderings needed to
give a true representation of the building and if it failed to do this, then it was definitely
misleading. This attitude towards precision and excellence was one of the reasons the
architectural renderings of “The Great Perspectivists” were chosen for analysis. The following
chart (figure 4.14) show a sample of the collected data and sample images of the types of
perspective renderings cataloged in this critical work.
3 Stamp, Gavin, The Great Perspectivists, Rizzoli International Publications, New York, 1982.
77
Great !"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Perspectivists Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 11 L 9:; <:= >:=?>@?A9 @:?> N Ext 22% AEL 9
Image 12 L 9:9 <:= >:B=;99>C @:>B Y Ext 33% EL 9
Image 13 L B:A A:B >:C9 @:9?BA;< @:C Y Ext 11% BIRDS 9
Image 15 P 9:9 ?:C >:AB;AB;9 @:<< Y Int 100% AEL 9
Image 16 L 9 ?:; >:?BBBBB= @:> Y Ext 44% EL A
Image 17 L 9:9 ?:< >:C>BC9 @:@B N Ext 66% EL A
Image 18 L 9:; ? >:B;;;;;C @:<C Y Ext 33% EL 9
Image 19 P ;:> ?:? >:BABABAB @:> Y Ext 44% EL 9
Image 20 P C:B 9 >:9; @:>B Y Ext 44% EL A
Image 21 L B:9 ;:> >:?=?AA<; @:>9 Y Ext 44% EL A
Image 22 L B:9 A:= >:C?A;=?= @:>9 Y Ext 44% AEL A
Image 23 L B:9 ;:9 >:?@C;=<? @:<C N Int 100% EL A
Image 24 L B:9 ; >:A>;;;;C @:>B Y Ext 55% EL A
Image 25 L B:? 9 >:;; @:< Y Ext 33% EL 9
Image 26 P C:C A:? >:C=@;=CC @:<9 Y Int 100% EL 9
Image 27 P C:C 9 >:9A @:>< N Ext 77% AEL ?
Image 28 L B:A A <:> @:<> Y Ext 33% AEL 9
Image 29 L B:9 9:= >:AA@;CB @:@C Y Ext 55% EL 9
Image 30 P 9:9 A >:?C9 @:>C Y Ext 66% EL A
Figure 4.14, Great Perspectivists Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 4.15, Image 12, Sir Charles Barry Figure 4.16, Image 20,
Philip Charles Hardwick
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 4.17, Image 18, Frederick Pepys Cockerell Figure 4.18, Image 27,
Sir Giles Gilbert Scott
78
Great Perspectivists Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 73 Perspectivist case study images:
Image Type 30
30% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
70
Image Ratio
45
% of Images
25
20
10
0 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
65
% of Images
30
0 5
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
25 25
% of Images
15
10 10
5 5
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
85
79
Horizon Line
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
46
% of Images
30
24
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
33
% of Images
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
80
% of Images
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
20
1/4 &1/3 Grid
80
80
The data analysis of the Great Perspectivists drawings show many similarities with the
previous contemporary case study results and the evaluation results show that the images
received a 4.7 out of 5. In the information, first we find that 70% of the images are landscape,
while 30% are portraits. Second, we see that 45% of the images have an image ratio between
1:1.6 to 1:2. Third, the viewpoint results show that 65% of the images are constructed at the
eye level viewpoint. Fourth, we see that 50% of the images have a building percentage ratio
between the 33-44% range. Fifth, the results show that there were no images constructed
from the below eye level viewpoint. Also, the eye level horizon line results reveal that the
horizon line of the images occur in the 0-30% range, which is lower than the average results.
The increase in images with the horizon line occurring from 0-10% is a result of images with
horizon lines placed at 8-10%. This horizon line placement is slightly below the average range
of 10-35%. These images maintain an effectiveness while being slightly outside of the average
range. Further, the above eye level images have a horizon line range between 10-40%, which
is on average lower than the previous results. In line with the average results, the bird’s eye
level images have a horizon line range between 70-90%. Finally, 80% of the images use the ⅓
& ¼ division grid as a compositional guide in the construction of the rendered scene.
In summary, the quality of the images is exceptional and the masterful hand drawings
further add to the depth of this research investigation. The images provided value and the
information contributes to the identification of fundamental principles in rendering a
successful architectural image. The following section will analyze the architectural perspective
drawings of Giovanni Battista Piranesi.
81
4.5 Giovanni Battista Piranesi
Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) was an Italian artist who studied latin and the
ancient civilization, later he studied architecture under his uncle, a venetian engineer who
specialized in excavation. He is famous for his elaborate etchings and engravings of fictitious
and intricate depictions of prisons and ancient city edifices. In his work he magnified the
presence of architectural elements, such as columns and arches, which are depicted with
increasing scale, people are minute and the permanence in architectural elements are focused
on. His visionary approach to the drawing of ruins and his ability to fantastically accentuate
their qualities made him famous in his time, which continues through today.
Several books have been written on his works, which have been widely influential on
the professional study and practice of architecture. It is known that Piranesi’s work had a
lasting impact on Louis Kahn, where, in his Philadelphia office, he hung a giant print of
Piranesi’s map of Rome [the Ichnographia of the Campo Marzio] throughout his mature career.
In Piranesi’s work, Kahn recognized Piranesi’s ability and “capacity to combine and recombine
the ruined fragments of a lost heroic past - ruined both by time and by the delirium of the
imagination.”4
In his time, Piranesi produced a number of series of vedute (views) of the city, Rome
and Venice were the two cities that he resided. He devoted himself to the measurement of
many of the ancient edifices, which later led to the publication of “Roman Antiquities of the
Time of the First Republic and the First Emperors.” Other aspects of his architectural career
focused on the restoration of churches, which were commissioned by Pope Clement XIII. Also,
Piranesi found success as a ‘restorer’ of ancient sculpture.
It is the lasting architectural rendered etchings and the perpetual influence in

architecture that provides the reason to case study his body of work. Several published
sources were used to collect Piranesi’s printed perspective renderings. These 52 images
represent some of his most studied and well known works.
In the following chart (figure 4.19) a sample of Piranesi’s image data collection is
presented. This data was then processed into charts comparing the information attained
against his other image data.
Wilton-Ely, J. (1994). Giovanni Battista Piranesi: The Complete Etchings - an Illustrated Catalogue. Vols. 1 & 2. San
Francisco: Alan Wofsy Fine Arts publications.
4 Kenneth Frampton, "Louis Kahn and the French Connection," Oppositions 22, 1980.
82
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
PIRANESI Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:; <:= >:=?=@A; B:@@ Y Ext 66% EL ;
Image 02 L @ >:; C B:CA Y Ext 44% EL ;
Image 03 L ?:= <:> >:@AAB=9C B:C= Y Ext 22% AEL ;
Image 04 L >?:= >@:9 >:@C@A=> B:C Y Int 100% AEL =
Image 05 L CB:9 >B C:B9 B:> N Ext 77% EL =
Image 06 L 9:A A:= >:@>B?>B? B:C; N Ext 100% AEL @
Image 07 L >A >C:> >:=B=9;?A B:@? Y Ext 22% AEL =
Image 08 L @:9 C:9 >:@==?CA< B:> Y Int 100% EL =
Image 09 L C:A >:< >:<?A; B:=C N Ext 44% AEL =
Image 10 L =:? @:= >:=>>A<=A B:@@ Y Ext 33% AEL =
Image 11 L C:< C:@ >:>@B=@=? B:> Y Ext 66% EL @
Image 12 L C:< >:A >:;C9=>>? B:> N Ext 55% EL =
Image 13 L ?:< <:> >:=B9?@<> B:@? Y Ext 44% AEL =
Image 14 L >C:< A:A >:<@<@<@< B:C; Y Int 100% EL =
Image 15 L >@:; ?:; >:;??C@;@ B:>? Y Ext 44% AEL =
Image 16 P ;:; = >:@A; B:>> Y Int 100% AEL ;
Image 17 L <:C =:9 >:C<;@B<> B:>C Y Int 100% EL =
Image 18 L <:9 =:? >:=@A; B:C; Y Int 100% AEL =
Image 19 L C:C >:= >:;A>=C?< B:@ N Int 100% AEL =
Image 20 L CA:< >A:A >:;;9@CC B:CA N Int 100% AEL ;
Figure 4.19, Piranesi Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 4.20, Image 15, Piranesi Figure 4.21, Image 13, Piranesi
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Figure 4.22, Image 19, Piranesi Figure 4.23, Image 10, Piranesi
83
Piranesi Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 52 Piranesi case study images:
5
Image Type
5% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
95
Image Ratio
40
30
% of Images
20
5 5
0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
60
% of Images
40
0 0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
45
% of Images
20
10 10
5 5 5
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
40
Interior/Exterior
60
84
Horizon Line
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
% of Images
25
12.5 12.5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
42
% of Images
25 25
8
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
1/4 &1/3 Grid
70
85
In the analysis results of the Piranesi images, we find, once again, many similarities
with all of the previous case studies. First, the Piranesi drawings received a 4.15 out of 5
evaluation. This evaluation tells us that the quality of the images are consistent with the
quality of the other case studies and establishes stability in the analysis when comparing the
results against previous results. Second, the image type findings show that 95% of the images
were landscape. Once again uniform with the previous results. Third, the image ratio results
show that the majority of images have a image ratio between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6, which is a smaller
ratio range than the average results. Fourth, in the viewpoint category, most of the images
have an above eye level viewpoint. Fifth, the building ratio results show an evenly spread out
distribution of building ratios for each image. Sixth, when looking at the eye level horizon line
result we find an increase in the number of images in the 0-10% range. This anomaly is
attributed to the increase in number of images with the horizon line occurring between
8-10%. The majority of images in this range have the horizon line occur on the higher end of
that spectrum. In the above eye level horizon line category, the majority of images have a
range between 20-30%, which is lower than the averages, but relatively close. This result will
have an affect on the final averages. Finally, 70% of the images were constructed using the ⅓
& ¼ division grids as compositional guides.
In summary, the quality of the images is exceptional and further add to the depth of
this research investigation. The images provided value and the information contributes to the
identification of fundamental principles in rendering a successful architectural image. The
following section will average the four case studies images.
4.6 Historical Analysis Summary
After completing the rendering analysis of each historical group, certain aspects of the
research came to light. First, there are certain testing variables that aren’t dependent of other
variables. For example, the Image Type, Image Ratio, Viewpoint, Ext/Int, Building Ratio, and ⅓
and ¼ Grid are not affected categories, which stabilizes the information when comparing it
against other data charts, making it easy to find accurate percentages. The results of these
categories are as follows.
86
Image Type Averages
Type is as follows:
17 1
16.5% Portrait Images
1.25% Square Images
83
Image Ratio Averages
31.25
% of Images
22.5 23.75
13.75
5 2.5
1.25 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
The averaged results are fairly consistent with the individual firms image ratios, the
majority of the images range between 1:1.4 thru 1:2
Viewpoint Averages
61.25
% of Images
28.75
7.5 2.5
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio Averages
32.5
% of Images
21.25
13.75 13.75
8.75
2.5 3.75 1.25 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
87
Horizon Line Averages
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
31
% of Images
25 24
12
3 5
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
32
% of Images
23
19
12.5
9
4.5
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
90
% of Images
10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
88
20
Interior/Exterior
80
16
1/4 &1/3 Grid
83.75% Compositional element at grid intersections
16.25% No compositional element at grid intersections
84
Upon review of the average results from the historical image analysis, the following
information has been determined. First, the average results from the image type category
show that 82.5% of the images were landscape, which is slightly higher than the 76.7% from
the Chapter 3 averages. Further, 16.5% of the images were portrait and a little over 1% were
square. This information suggests that the preferred image type when depicting architecture
through rendered images is landscape, followed by portrait and in rare examples the square
image type is used. Second, the image ratio results reveal that the majority of images, 31%,
were constructed within the 1:1.4 to 1:1.6 ratio, these averages are lower than the chapter 2.
However, the second highest percentage of images, 24%, fall within the 1:1.6 to 1:2 image ratio
range, which the majority of Chapter 3 images fell into. Third, the viewpoint results show that
61.25% of the images were constructed from the eye level viewpoint, which is 9% higher than
the Chapter 3 averages. The second highest percentage of images fell into the above eye level
viewpoint category, accounting for 29% of the total images. These results show that the
preferred viewpoint is at eye level. The second most used viewpoint is above eye level.
Fourth, the building ratio averages show that 32.5 % of the exterior images have a building
percentage of 33%, which is the most common range in exterior images. Overall, the 22-44%
building ratio range accounts for 60% of the exterior images. Of the total images, 20% are
interior images, which account for 20% of the 21.25% of images that have a building
percentage of 100%. This tells us that most of the images with a 100% building ratio are
interior images. Fifth, the horizon line averages show that the majority of below eye level
images have a horizon line range between 10-30%, which is similar to the 10-35% range from
the Chapter 3 average results. Also, the results show that the majority of eye level images have
a horizon line range between 0-35%. This increase, in the horizon line occurring in lower
percentages, is a result of the increase in images where the horizon line occurred between
89
8-10%. Both the Great Perspectivist and Giovanni Piranesi’s images impacted this category the
most. Further, the above eye level horizon line averages show a shift towards lower ranges
where the horizon line occurs. The results show that the majority of images have a horizon
line range between 10-40%, which is lower than the 30-50% averages from the Chapter 3
results. Moreover, the horizon line averages show that the bird’s eye level images have a range
between 70-90%, which is consistent with Chapter 3 average results. Finally, 83.75% of the
images studied made use of the ⅓ & ¼ division grids in the composition of their architectural
rendered images.
In summary, the average results from the four historical case study groups show many
similarities with the results from the contemporary case study groups. The only identifiable
difference was the shift in lower image aspect ratios from 1:1.6 - 1:2 to 1:1.4 - 1:1.6 and the
increase in lower horizon line placements in both eye level and above eye level images. This is
attributed to the increase in images whose horizon line occurred between 8-10%, which
ultimately shifted the values, in comparison to the contemporary case study averages of
chapter 3.
In chapter 5, further image analysis examines 3 impacting architectural photographers

of the twentieth century. Each case study group will have a selected number of images
analyzed, summarized and eventually averaged to formulate the next group case study
research.
90
Chapter 5 I Architecture Photography Analysis
This chapter investigates the work of these three architecture photographers by

collecting their images and processing them through the same system of analysis previously
stated in Chapter 2. Following the analysis, of each body of work , a summary conclusion will
compare the similarities and differences between the different subjects.
5.1 Introduction
The Rules of Perspective are geometric principles that establish a framework to

construct perspective renderings. These same qualities are found in the captured photograph.
In photographs, accurate representations of reality are captured in time through still frames.
These images, which permeate our lives, have a relationship to architectural renderings.
Furthermore, in todays advanced 3d modeling and animation programs, such as 3ds Max,
Maya, Cinema4d and Lightwave, the main instrument for capturing a still rendering or
animation is a virtual camera. The qualities of the virtual camera are identically modeled after
real cameras. They posses such features as shutter speed, ISO, f-number, aperture width, focal
length and field of view adjustments. For these reasons, this chapter focuses on the image
analysis of architectural photographs.
In the twentieth century, there have been millions of photographs taken, much of
which incorporated architecture. Some of these photos were professionally documented
while other were simply hobby snapshots. In the span of the last century, several prominent
architectural photographers have received international acclaim and success in their
respective field. Of the many acclaimed photographers, three were identified for their large
bodies of work, their professional achievement and the influence of their work on aspiring
photographers. Julius Shulman, Ezra Stoller and Hedrich-Blessing’s photographic work has
been well published in both critical architectural magazines and major book publications.
They represent a class of twentieth century photographers whose photos captured some of
the most recognized architectural images of that century. These icons of their field produced
still images of major twentieth century architecture by some of the most influential architects
of that century. In their photography, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies Van der
Rohe, Philip Johnson, Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, Richard Neutra and Frank Gehry is captured,
published and vicariously experienced by novice, student, teacher and practitioners of
architecture.
91
5.2 Julius Shulman
Julius Shulman is regarded as one of the most influential photographers of modern

architecture. He started his career in photography while auditing classes at UCLA where he
became friends with an intern in Richard Neutra’s architectural office. In the winter of 1936,
Shulman was invited to accompany his friend on an inspection of Neutra’s Kun House. There
he snapped shots of the home with his vest pocket camera and a tripod. Shulman later gave
the photographs to his friend who showed them to Neutra, which began his career as an
architectural photographer. Although Shulman had an instinctive talent for photographic
compositions, he also received teaching from Neutra, who took the young Shulman under his
wing. As he produced more work for Neutra his photographs became well known and his
career exploded.
Over his career, Shulman has worked with influential architects and designers such as,
Raphael Soriano, Richard Neutra, Charles and Ray Eames, Oscar Niemeyer, Frank Lloyd Wright,
Mies Van Der Rohe and Frank Gehry. His early black and white imagery is phenomenal. In his
work, Shulman possessed and uncanny ability to frame the buildings within their landscapes
and practiced an overexposing of the film to achieve greater shade intensities, “allowing the
contrast of the photograph's shade and shadow to read more dramatically and to bring out
the tonal value of the sky.” 1 One of the main interests in his compositions was to express the
relationship between the building and the landscape, which he achieved through careful
framing of the perspective shot.
Some of Shulman’s most notable work was created in the Case Study House Program,
produced by the magazine Art & Architecture and later published under the title, “Case Study
Houses: 1945-1966: The California Impetus.” In this work the iconic architectural photograph of
case study house #22, Pierre Koenig, 1959, was captured. The compositional brilliance of this
image is an example of the quality of photography that Shulman captured over his illustrious
career. Based on his work and contribution to architecture and the architectural image, a
selection of his photographs were collected for further image analysis. The following data,
figure 5.01, is a sample of the larger number of photographs that where analyzed and
recorded for further analysis.
1 Rosa, Joseph. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. Rizzoli. New York. 1994.
92
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Shulman Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 06 P 9:; <:= >:?<;?@9@ A:;9 Y Ext 66% EL <
Image 07 P @:> ?:; >:?=>BBB9 A:?= N Ext 66% EL ;
Image 08 L B:= <:; >:?99999C A:<9 Y Ext 11% EL ;
Image 09 P <:C ;:B >:?BACB=B A:?@ N Int 100% EL <
Image 10 L B:> <:@ >:><A=;@; A:<C Y Ext 22% EL ;
Image 11 L B:B <:? >:?B=?@AC A:>< Y Ext 22% EL <
Image 12 SQ B:9< B:9< > A:< Y Ext 11% EL <
Image 13 L ;:? @:; >:?@<?=;> A:?< Y Ext 44% EL <
Image 14 P ;:< @:< >:?C<9>;@ A:;9 N Int 100% EL ;
Image 15 L 9::?< A:;@ Y Int 100% EL <
Image 16 L 9:9 B:> >:?B??=<> A:?< Y Ext 33% EL ;
Image 17 P = 9 >:?C<9>;@ A:< Y Ext 11% EL <
Image 18 L B:= <:< >:?<;<;<< A:; Y Ext 77% EL ;
Image 19 P <:< ;:@ >:?9=AB=C A:;; Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 20 L 9::?< A:<< N Int 77% EL @
Image 21 L 9:> <:C >:??;>@9= A:; Y Int 100% EL @
Image 22 L 9:B B:> >:?;<=A>B A:< Y Ext 11% EL @
Image 23 P >A:C 9:C >:@C;B><; A:<9 Y Ext 33% EL <
Image 24 P =:B 9:< >:?C A:< N Ext 11% EL ;
Image 25 P >A:C C:> >:@@@@@@@ A:@C N Ext 44% BEL @
Figure 5.01, Julius Shulman Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 5.02, Image 13, Julius Shulman Figure 5.03, Image 06, Julius Shulman
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 5.04, Image 15, Julius Shulman Figure 5.05, Image 09, Julius Shulman
93
Shulman Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 90 Shulman case study images:
5
Image Type
45% Portrait Images 45
5% Square Images
50
Image Ratio
90
% of Images
5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
95
% of Images
5 0 0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
25
% of Images
19
16
10 12 10 8
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
30
Interior/Exterior
70
94
Horizon Line
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
38
% of Images
21 21
16
5 5
0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
30
1/4 & 1/3 Grid
70
95
The average results of the 90 Shulman photographs show a decrease in landscape
image types to 50% and an increase in portrait image types to 45%. Further, the majority of
images fall within the 1:1.2 to 1:1.4 range. These results show a significant decrease in image
aspect ratio from the previous two chapters. The increase in the lower image aspect ratio is
attributed to the increase in the percentage of portrait images. When examining the
viewpoint category, the results show that 95% of the images were constructed from the eye
level viewpoint, this percentage is roughly 15% higher than the averages from Chapter 3 & 4.
Also, the building ratio results show that the building percentage has a range between 22-33%
with the third highest percentage in the 44% category, these percentages reflect exterior
images. In the horizon line category we find, the below eye level range at 30-40% and the eye
level range concentrated between 20-60%. These results reflect a significant difference from
previous case studies and will be explain upon review in the summary.
5.3 Ezra Stoller
Ezra Stoller (16 May 1915 – 29 October 2004) was an American architectural
photographer. His interest in photography began while he was an architecture student at
New York University, when he began making lantern slides and photographs of architectural
models, drawings and sculpture. After his graduation in 1939, he concentrated on
photography. His work featured landmarks of modern architecture, including Mies van der
Rohe’s Seagram Building, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater and Alvar Aalto’s Finnish Pavilion.
Stoller is often cited in aiding the spread of the Modern Movement. In 1961, he was the first
recipient of a Gold Medal for Photography from the American Institute of Architects. Stoller's
photographs were featured in the book “Modern Architecture: Photographs by Ezra Stoller”.
The achievements of his photographic work is prolific and his images are striking in their
compositional harmony, depth and value.
During his long career as an architectural photographer, Stoller worked closely with
many of the period’s leading architects, including: Frank Lloyd Wright, Paul Rudolph, Marcel
Breuer, I.M. Pei, Gordon Bunshaft, Eero Saarinen, Richard Meier and Mies van der Rohe, among
others. Many modern buildings are known and remembered by the images Stoller created. He
was uniquely able to visualize the formal and spatial aspirations of modernist architecture. The
first time the American Institute of Architects awarded a medal for architectural photography,
in 1960, it was given to Ezra Stoller.2
2 Ezra Stoller Website, about page, http://www.esto.com/ezrastoller.aspx
96
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Stoller Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 P 9:;< =;> 9;<?9@A>9 :;AA Y Ext 33% AEL <
Image 02 P ? 9;= 9;?< :;?< N Ext 66% EL <
Image 03 P =;< <;9 9;?@B<:>C :;9C Y Ext 44% EL <
Image 04 P C;> @;A 9;?9>9@C9 :;B? Y Int 100% EL <
Image 05 L @;> <;@ 9;AC<>=B> :;9< Y Ext 33% EL <
Image 06 P =;@ <;A 9;?=B9<:> :;?@ Y Ext 22% EL B
Image 07 P =;@ <;< 9;?9C9C9C D0E Y Int 100% BEL <
Image 08 P C;?< =;= 9;?< :;< Y Int 100% EL <
Image 09 P B;A A;B 9;?=B@:<> :;9< Y Int 100% EL <
Image 10 L A;B ?;< 9;A= :;?< Y Ext 33% EL B
Image 11 P 9B;B @ ?;:<@9B?> :;9< Y Ext 33% AEL <
Image 12 L =;> A;9 ?;??<C:=< :;B= Y Ext 44% EL <
Image 13 P ? 9;< 9;AAAAAAA :;A Y Int 100% EL <
Image 14 P B;A B;? 9;:?AC:>< :;?= Y Ext 33% EL <
Image 15 P C;C =;> 9;?@<A=?A :;A9 Y Int 100% EL <
Image 16 P =;@ <;B 9;?B:@B:@ :;?< Y Ext 22% BEL <
Image 17 P =;@ <;B 9;?B:@B:@ :;?< Y Ext 22% EL <
Image 18 P > =;> 9;A:BAB@C :;CA N Int 100% AEL <
Image 19 L ? 9;B 9;B?C<@9B :;BA N Int 100% EL B
Image 20 P <;< A;= 9;<?@@@@C :;A? Y Ext 44% AEL B
Figure 5.06, Ezra Stoller Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 5.07, Image 08, Ezra Stoller Figure 5.08, Image 05, Ezra Stoller
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
HL
Figure 5.09, Image 09, Ezra Stoller Figure 5.10, Image 10, Ezra Stoller
97
Stoller Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 50 Stoller case study images:
Image Type
20% Landscape Images 20
80% Portrait Images
0% Square Images
80
Image Ratio
70
% of Images
15
10
5
0 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
70
% of Images
20
10
0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
40
% of Images
25
15 15
5
0 0 0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
40
Interior/Exterior
60
98
Horizon Line
50 50
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
43
% of Images
29
21
7
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
% of Images
25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
15
1/4 &1/3 Grid
85
99
The Ezra Stoller results show a dramatic shift between the percentages of portrait
images compared to landscape images. Further, the image ratio is consistent with the image
ratios from the Julius Shulman case studies, around 1:1.2 to 1:1.4. In alignment with the
previous case studies, the majority of images were taken from eye level. Additionally, when
looking at the building ratio results we find that the majority of exterior images fall between
the 22-44% range. Also, the horizon line results show that the below eye level images have a
range from 10-30%, the eye level images have a range from 20-50% and the above eye level
images have a fluctuating range. These results can be attributed to the small number of above
eye level images that were analyzed, 4 all together. Finally, 85% of the images used the ⅓ & ¼
division grid as a compositional guideline.
In summary, the images of Ezra Stoller show the significant changes to the data
analysis when the percentages of portrait images increase and the percentage of landscape
images decrease. The next section will analyze the images of the Hedrich - Blessing
photography studio.
5.4 Hedrich - Blessing
Hedrich-Blessing Photographers is an architectural photography firm established in

Chicago in 1929 by partners Ken Hedrich and Henry Blessing, which became the world's
premier architectural photography company. In their work they effortlessly translate the three
dimensional world of the built environment into the two dimensions of a photograph. Their
images aim to “distill a space down to its essence.”3 Many of their images iconize the buildings
through powerfully subtle techniques. In the thirties, Frank Lloyd Wright had Hedrich-Blessing
capture his latest work. Through the trees Hedrich found the perfect vantage point to view
the masterpiece that would forever after be known as "Fallingwater." Further work was
entrusted to them by Skidmore Owings and Merrill, which became the world's biggest
architectural firm and carried Hedrich-Blessing with them into the first ranks of architecture.
3 http://www.architechgallery.com/arch_info/artists_pages/hedrich_blessing.html, April, 2012.
100
!"#$% !"#$% !"#$% !"#$%& '()*+(,& -)*. !,/%)*()0 12*3.*,$& 4*%56(*,/ 78#32#/*(,
Hedrich Type Length Width Ratio Line % 1/3s & 1/4s Exterior % Ratio Location
Image 01 L 9:; <:= >:?9<=@?> A:>B Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 02 P 9:B <:= >:C@?A@B A:>? Y Ext 33% EL <
Image 03 L ;:9 C:= >:?C@=;?> A:>B N Ext 44% EL ;
Image 04 L 9:; <:B >:?<;?C9C A:CC Y Int 33% EL <
Image 05 L 9:; <:C >:CB@??@; A:?@ Y Ext 33% BEL ;
Image 06 L @:B < >:C= A:>? N Ext 55% EL ;
Image 07 P 9:= <:@ >:CB?=<9> A:?< Y Ext 22% EL <
Image 08 L 9:< <:= >:?BC>AC; D0E Y Ext 88% BEL ;
Image 09 P 9:B @:? >:?9;>BC< D0E Y Ext 33% BEL ;
Image 10 P =:@ @:C >:C@<A9B; A:?= N Int 100% EL <
Image 11 L 9:< ;:C >:9;;>=@ A:?< Y Ext 11% AEL <
Image 12 P =:9 @:= >:?9B;>>= A:?< Y Ext 66% EL <
Image 13 L 9:C <:@ >:CAC<9>; A:?@ N Ext 66% EL ;
Image 14 P 9:= @:@ >:>=>=>=? A:< N Int 44% EL <
Image 15 P = @:C >:?@B=;>C A:< Y Int 100% EL <
Image 16 P = @:? >:?BAC??@ A:?< Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 17 P 9:= @:; >:?>=9< A:; Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 18 P 9:9 @ >:?=CCCCC A:CC Y Int 100% EL ;
Image 19 P ;:C C:; >:?@;9A= N Ext 33% EL C
Image 20 P @:B < >:C= A:>? N Ext 55% EL ;
Figure 5.11, Hedrich-Blessing Data Chart
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Figure 5.12, Image 05, Hedrich-Blessing Figure 5.13, Image 12, Hedrich
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL
Figure 5.14, Image 06, Hedrich-Blessing Figure 5.15, Image 09, Hedrich-
Blessing
101
Hedrich-Blessing Image Summary
image analysis chart that looked into 65 Hedrich-Blessing case study images:
Image Type
60% Portrait Images 60 40
0% Square Images
Image Ratio
90
% of Images
0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
Viewpoint
80
% of Images
15
5 0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
30
25
% of Images
10 10 10
5 5
0 0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
40
Interior/Exterior
60
102
Horizon Line
67
% of Images
33
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
37 37
% of Images
13 13
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
35
1/4 &1/3 Grid
65
103
The analysis results from the Hedrich-Blessing images are consistent with both the
Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller results. Overall, the average evaluation of the quality of the
images was 4.35 out of 5. This indicates the well above average quality of the images. Further,
several characteristics of this set of images were identified through analysis. First, as in the
previous two cases, the majority of images were portrait, 60%, while 40% accounted for the
landscape image type. These results are similar to the results from the Ezra Stoller and Julius
Shulman cases. Second, the majority of images have a ratio range between 1:1.2 to 1:1.4, also
similar with the first two cases. Third, 80% of the images were taken from the eye level
viewpoint, which is 30% higher than the averages from the previous two chapters. Fourth,
after examining the building ratio results we find that the majority of exterior images have a
33% building to image ratio. Fifth, the results from the horizon line category show that all of
the below eye level images have a horizon line that occurs between the range from 10-30%,
which is consistent with the average results. Also, the results from the eye level images show
that the majority of images have a horizon line between 10-30%, the results are consistent
with the overall averages. Additionally, the above eye level images have a horizon line range
between 20-30%, which is lower than the averages. Finally, 65% of the images used the ⅓ &
¼ division grid in the composition of the architectural renderings.
In summary, the images of Hedrich-Blessing show similar analysis results as the first
two case studies from this chapter. These results will be averaged with the results from the
Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller case images in the next section, which will help identify similar
parameters that are intrinsic to an architectural photograph and that can later be compared
with the average results from the architectural renderings in Chapters 3 & 4.
5.5 Architectural Photography Analysis Summary
This section summarizes the information ascertained in the previous 3 sections of

analysis, which investigated photographic images from Julius Shulman, Ezra Stoller and
Hedrich-Blessing. The information below are the average results of the 3 previous section,
which are demonstrated through similar charts and graphs.
104
Image Type
Type is as follows:

63.33% Portrait Images 63 37
0% Square Images
Image Ratio
83.33
% of Images
3.33 3.33 5 1.66 3.33 0 0 0

1:1-1.1 1:1.1-1.2 1:1.2-1.4 1:1.4-1.6 1:1.6-2 1:2-2.5 1:2.5-3.3 1:3.3-10 1:10-100
Image Ratio
The averaged results are consistent among the 3 case study photographers, where the
majority of the images range between 1:1.2 thru 1:4.
Viewpoint
81.66
% of Images
10 8.33
0
Viewpoint Location
Building Ratio
31.66
% of Images
20
10 10 11.66
8.33
3.33 3.33
0
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
Building %
105
Horizon Line
39
33
28
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
33
26
% of Images
21
12
7
1 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
50
% of Images
25
12.5 12.5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% of Images
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
106
Interior/Exterior
37
63.33% of Images were Exterior
36.66% of Images were Interior
63
1/4 &1/3 Grid 25

75
Based on the average results of the data collected from the image analysis of Julius
Shulman, Ezra Stoller and Hedrich-Blessing the following conclusions can be made. It is
determined that 63.33% of the Image Types were portrait images and 36.66% were landscape
images. The percentage of images that where presented in square format was less than 1%.
Therefore, we can assume that the preferred image type of the three photographers was a
portrait image. When examining the average Image Ratio it is obvious that the dominant ratio
falls within the 1:1.2 - 1:1.4 image ratio, which accounts for 83% of the images analyzed. This
raises the question of whether or not the photographers had a predisposition towards the
identified image ratio or that the medium with which they worked impacted their decisions.
Up until the digital era, photography was produced through film development. It is
commonly understood that the majority of photographic images were taken with a handheld
35mm roll-film camera, which was the most ubiquitous and indispensable camera of the
twentieth century. The 35mm camera uses a 35mm film, which measures 35mm wide. Each
picture taken produces a negative that measures 24mm x 35mm, which results in an aspect
ratio of 1:1.45. This aspect ratio could be altered through the cropping of an image. However,
the process of cropping was time consuming and required that the photographer conceive
the future crop while taking the photograph. Based on the widespread use of the 35mm
camera, the assumption can be made that the results of the Image Ratio are a direct reflection
of the use of the 35mm camera and film, which predetermined the aspect ratio of the
photograph. Therefore, the resulting image ratios are not consistent with the ratios in the
previous chapters. Through analysis, a distinction was identified between the ideal image
ratios of portrait images and the ideal image ratio of landscape images. It was discovered that
ideal landscape images maintain a higher image aspect ratio, which ranges between 1:1.4 -
1:2. While ideal portrait images maintain an image aspect ratio range between 1:1.2 - 1:1.6.
107
The image type and image ratio summary results of this section suggest that the
photographers preferred the portrait image over the landscape image and therefore preferred
the aspect ratio of 1:1.45 to be applied to portrait images, rather than landscape images. This
information is consistent with the discoveries made in the previous chapters.
Since these architectural photographs where taken by people, it comes as no surprise

that 83% of the images where taken from the eye level viewpoint. This information is
consistent with the previous two chapters of analysis.
The average results in the building ratio category for this chapter are consistent with
the results of the previous two chapters. In this chapter, the building ratio shows that the
majority of exterior images have a building percentage of 33%. 32% of the images analyzed
were interior shots and therefore have a building ratio of 100% of the image.
The horizon line results show that the majority of below eye level images have a
horizon line occur between 10-35% range. Also, the majority of eye level images have a
horizon line occur between the 20-30% range. Further, the majority of above eye level images
occur between the 10-40% range, which is lower than the average results from the previous
two chapters. In the photographic images of all three cases there were no bird’s eye level
images taken and therefore the results show in the chart with zeros.
Finally, the rule of thirds clearly is implemented in the composition of the architectural
images taken by Julius Shulman, Ezra Stoller & the firm of Hedrich-Blessing as it accounts for a
75% usage rate of the images analyzed.
In this chapter, one iconic architectural photography firm and two influential
architectural photographers work were analyzed through the case study analysis method
established in Chapter 2. Each case study subject was analyzed individually and their results
where averaged together through the same method of analysis. Most of the analysis results
were consistent with the previous two chapters. In addition, the distinction between ideal
landscape image ratios and portrait image ratios was reinforced. This concludes the image
analysis case study research of Chapters 3, 4 & 5.
In the next chapter, the principles of photography are presented and key components
are identified as viable principles towards digital architectural rendering composition.
108
Chapter 6 I Fundamental Principles
In the previous chapters 3, 4 and 5, a system of image analysis was proposed to record
image attributes from three separate classifications of architectural images; contemporary,
historic and photographic. Each chapter of analysis ended with a summary of averages for
each classification. These averages described the overall attributes of the architectural
rendering and architectural photograph. Through image analysis, 10 fundamental principles
were identified. In this chapter, the 10 fundamental principles are explained. They include;
Image Type, Image Ratio, Viewpoint, Focal Point, Horizon Line, Rule of Thirds & ¼ Division,
Building Ratio, Leading Lines, Framing and Depth. The presentation of a comparative image
example, will follow. This example compares two architectural renderings of the same
building and same viewpoint, showing the difference between an image with and without the
fundamental principles.
6.1 Introduction
Architectural renderings are complex descriptions of form, space and order. They
express the geometric form of architects, the materiality of the design, the atmospheric intent,
the contextual interaction between buildings and people, the spatial experience and the
emotional attachment to place. These are just a few descriptions of the expressive capacity of
the rendered image. The depth of the overall architectural rendering subject and the process
of rendering development is difficult to summarize into a single set of principles and this
research makes no attempt to reduce the entire process of architectural rendering into a
simple formula. The intent of this research, however, is to identify a fundamental framework to
enhance the quality of an architectural rendering. This fundamental framework serves as a
foundational guide, which identifies key principles that affect the overall outcome of the
architectural rendering. With this framework the rendering is constructed to a point from
which the rendering can be further developed stylistically in many different directions to fully
represent the material, cultural, emotional and atmospheric qualities of the architectural
intent. In this chapter, 10 fundamental principles are presented as key characteristics of a high
quality architectural rendering. Based on case study research, these principles and the
application of the principles are identified and explained in detail.
109
6.2 Image Type
Renderings are two-dimensional image representations of a depicted three-

dimensional space or reality, existing or imaginary. They are found throughout history. From
the early Lascaux cave paintings, 15,000-13,000 BCE (figure 6.01), which depicted scenes on
wall surfaces to the perspective drawing for the Church of Santo Spirito in Florence by Filippo
Brunelleschi, 1377–1446 CE, and later to the twentieth
century perspective images of Frank Lloyd Wright
(figure 6.02), three-dimensional representations have
been documented on two-dimensional surfaces. While
the cave surfaces of Lascaux are three-dimensional in
terms of texture, over time and through technology the
surfaces we employ have flattened into two-
dimensional planes in the form of paper sheets, canvas’
and, more currently, digital screens. With this
understanding that the still rendering representations
that we are producing will inherently be presented in
Figure 6.01, Lascaux caves, France.
this format this leads us to decide the image type.
The image type determines the window in

which the viewer is presented the rendered scene.
There are three essential image types; landscape,
portrait or square.
This decision is easy to overlook and might

seem insignificant or irrelevant, but it’s not.
Determining the window frame establishes the
foundational tone of the scene. The author of the
rendering must ask themselves a few essential
questions before determining the orientation of the
canvas or window frame. For example, do the
elements of the rendering want to accentuate the
horizontal or vertical qualities of the scene? A tall
building form has a strong inherent vertical presence,
which can be complimented by a vertical portrait Figure 6.02, “Golden Beacon”, FLW,
window frame (figure 6.02). This relationship is 1956.
110
Figure 6.03, Luxigon.
complimentary. However, this does not mean that all tall elements should use the portrait
image type. There are often situations when the isolated vertical element, such as a building
tower is intended by the rendering author to serve as a unique contrasting element to the
horizontality of the landscape and supporting contextual elements, such as trees, lower
podiums, surrounding low rise buildings, etc. The contrasting of an element can also be
accentuated through the use of a landscape oriented image types, as demonstrated in the
rendered work of the rendering firm, Luxigon (figure 6.03). This landscape image type allows
the author to open the image scene to horizontal space, which creates a unique and powerful
opportunity for the imposition of an isolated vertical element. The importance of the resulting
single vertical moment is clearly the focus of the image and it is supported by the horizontality
of the image window and it’s secondary horizontal elements.
Landscape
Based on the analysis results from the contemporary and historical case study
renderings, landscape is the preferred image type, accounting for 79.6% of all the images from
those two classifications of rendered images. This image type supports and accentuates the
horizontal elements of a rendered image. It’s composition is common and understandable to
all. It is a basic rectangle with different values of length and width. The longer length is always
positioned on the bottom and top edge or segment, leaving the shorter length to compose
the side edges.
While the evidence suggests that the landscape image is the most common to express
architecture, it does not suggest that it is the best. However, one can assume that the
111
landscape image offers more diversity and flexibility when describing architecture based on
the popularity of its use. The landscape frame moves the viewers attention across the image,
providing more description of the contextual form and space surrounding the main
architectural object in a scene. This gives the author of the image a chance to tell more of a
story about the place in the image. One can ascertain that regardless of building type the
landscape image successfully articulates architecture and acts as the default image type in
architectural renderings.
Portrait
In architectural renderings, the portrait image

type is used primarily to accentuate the vertical elements
of a composition. This image type works well with tall
sky scrapper renderings or tight cavernous depictions of
space that tend to reach vertically towards the sky or
light source. Based on the historical and contemporary
analysis, the portrait image is used only 16.7% of the
time, which suggests either it is a difficult image type to
develop or there are limited opportunities to use it. What
we know from the evidence is that it is not a common
image type. However, the image type clearly possesses
the capacity to describe architecture, as seen in the
Figure 6.04, Luxigon.
following examples.
In Figure 6.04, the height of the interior courtyard

is accentuated through the use of the portrait, which is
then reinforced by the vertical space of the architecture
being depicted. It is important to identify the main
qualities of the form or space, which the author wants to
recognize. Understanding the intrinsic qualities of the
architectural scene will aid in the decision of the image
type. In other cases, such as Paul Stevenson Oles
rendering of the Dallas Centre Development by I.M. Pei,
figure 6.05, the verticality of the tower is powerfully
framed by the portrait type. The sleek and slender nature
of the tower is seen as rising to the sky. In addition to Figure 6.05, Paul Stevenson Oles.
112
accentuating the vertical, the portrait type also serves as a compression element, which
squeezes the compositional elements of the rendering and stretches their height.
Finally, the portrait image type tends to lead the viewers attention upwards. In
looking at a portrait scene their focus rises. Typically, in rendered scenes of high-rise towers,
an accentuating element is placed at the terminating point of this path of attention. For
example, in both figure 6.04 & 6.05, the height of each space is terminated with a glowing
focal point, light shining through in the top image and light reflecting off the building in the
bottom image.
Square
In architectural renderings the square image type is used in less than 4% of the images
analyzed, from the contemporary and historical cases. Further, there were zero photographic
examples. This tells us that the image type is not preferred. One can assume that the image
type is limiting in terms of compositional flexibility and architectural expression. Discovered in
the analysis was that the square image is not affected by
building type and doesn’t possess an inherent propensity
towards horizontal or vertical elements, it can accentuate
either and is neutral to the architecture of the scene.
There is a tendency, on the other hand, of the square
type to implement 1-point perspective. Typically a
square image type centers the main compositional
elements, whether a building, distant setting view or
activity. For example, in figure 6.06 the main building
tower is centered in the composition. Also, in figure 6.07 Figure 6.06, MIR.
the architecture is centered in the image composition.
It is important to note that all three image types

are capable of excellent architectural renderings and that
the decision to use a particular type is up to the author of
the image. However, it is equally important to
understand the percentages that a particular image type
is used, based on the case study evidence, when
constructing an architectural rendering. Next, we will
examine the Image Ratio principle. Figure 6.07. Evermotion.
113
6.3 Image Ratio
The concept of ratio was familiar to preliterate cultures and therefore it is impossible to
identify the origin. However, it is possible to trace the origin of the word “ratio” to the ancient
Greeks. As far back as 300 BCE, Euclid, the “Father of Geometry”, in Book V of Euclid’s
“Elements”, produced 18 definitions for ratio. One of his definitions defines, ratios as a relation
in respect of size between two magnitudes of the same kind such as length to length, area to
area, volume to volume. In mathematics, a ratio is simply a relationship between two numbers
of the same kind. For our purposes, the Image Ratio is simply the aspect ratio of the rendered
image, which describes the proportional relationships between the length and width of an
image. Over time, certain ratios have been identified as ideal, such as the “golden ratio,”
1:1.618, which is commonly attributed to Pythagoras, or the 4:3(1:1.33) ratio, commonly used
in old television screens, old computer monitors and still camera photography. Additional
image aspect ratios have been used for common image producing and viewing technologies,
such as the 1:1.5 ratio of 35mm film, the 1:1.77 ratio of HD televisions and the 1:1.85 or 1:2.4
widescreen cinema standard in movie theaters. These ideal image viewing ratios are
established and impact the way we see images. These existing “common” or “ideal” ratios will
be compared with the image analysis results in order to understand and formulate an ideal
Image Ratio guide or framework to construct renderings from.
The contemporary image analysis showed that the most commonly used image ratios
in contemporary renderings is between 1:1.6 to 1:2, used 28.3% of the time. This ratio range
includes ideal ratios such as the “golden ratio”, HD Televisions (1:1.77 or 16:9), new computer
monitors and widescreen cinema displays. It is important to note that most of the images
within this image ratio range received higher evaluation scores when compared against the
lower Image Ratios range of 1:1.1 to 1:1.2 and 1:1.2 to 1:1.4, which received, on average, lower
evaluation scores. These results do not suggest that the image ratio determines the quality of
the rendering, for there were numerous examples of high quality images with lower image
aspect ratios. However, the results do suggest that there is a likelier improvement in quality if
the higher aspect ratio or image ratio is used. Further, the results show that the second most
common image ratios in contemporary renderings is between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6, used 24% of the
time. This ratio range includes 35mm film. The point should be made that while the image
ratio range of 1:2 to 1:2.5 only accounted for 8% of the images, most of the images received
the highest evaluation.
114
Image Ratio 1:1 1:1.2 1:1.4 1:1.6 1:2 1:2.5
Ideal Landscape Image

ratio 1:1.4 to 1:2
Figure 6.08, Landscape Image Ratio Chart.
The historical image analysis results show that the most commonly used image ratios
in historical renderings is between 1:1.4 to 1:1.6, used 31% of the time and the second most
common image ratio range is between 1:1.6 to 1:2, used 24% of the time. Once again, the
evaluations from the 1:1.6 to 1:2 range received the highest evaluation averages when
compared with the other image ratio ranges. Based on analysis and through synthesis, an
ideal landscape image ratio range was identified, shown illustrated in figure 6.08. This image
ratio range, between 1:1.4 to 1:2, reflects the most used image ratio of the images analyzed. In
figures below the same image has two different image ratios. In figure 6.09, the image ratio is
1:1.618 or what is commonly known as the “golden ratio.” In comparison to figure 6.10, whose
image ratio is 1:1.25, the difference is clearly illustrated and one can see that the larger image
ratio opens the image and brings the viewer into the horizontal space that is being
represented. While, in figure 6.10, the proportions of the ratio create tension between the
horizontal and vertical aspects of the image, which create confusion. The image doesn’t know
which aspects are more important, caused by the image ratio.
Figure 6.09, 1:1.618 Image Ratio. Vyonyx. 2011. Figure 6.10, 1:1.25 Image Ratio. Vyonyx.
2011.
115
The photographic image analysis results show that the most
Image Ratio 1:2.2
common image ratio is between 1:1.2 to 1:1.4, used 83% of the
Image Ratio 1:2
time. As previously stated in Chapter 5, the dominance of this
image ratio range can be attributed to the medium format from
Image Ratio 1:1.8
which the photographs were taken. It is commonly understood

Image Ratio 1:1.6
Ideal Portrait Image ratio 1:1.3 to 1:1.6

that the majority of photographic images were taken with a
handheld 35mm roll-film cameras, each picture taken produces a
Image Ratio 1:1.3
negative that measures 24mm x 35mm, which results in an aspect

ratio of 1:1.45. Based on the widespread use of the 35mm camera,
the assumption can be made that the results of the image ratio are
Image Ratio 1:1 a direct reflection of the use of the 35mm camera and film which
predetermined the aspect ratio of the
photograph. The image ratio summary
results suggest that the photographers
Figure 6.11, Portrait Image
Ratio Chart. preferred the portrait image over the
landscape image and therefore preferred
the aspect ratio of 1:1.45 applied to portrait images, rather than
landscape images. Based on the analysis and through synthesis, an
ideal image ratio of portrait images was discovered that maintain an
image aspect ratio range between 1:1.3 to 1:1.6, shown in figure
6.11. This ideal portrait image ratio represents the average results
from the case study analysis.
Two examples have been included to illustrate the

differences within the portrait image ratio range. Figure 6.12 shows
Figure 6.12, 1:2 Image
an image with a 1:2 image ratio. The research has shown that this Ratio
image ratio for portrait images is rarely used. There are several
reasons, but one can see that the ratio creates a narrow and tall
image, leaving only space below and above the image to develop.
In contrast, figure 6.13, shows an image with the 1:1.3 ratio. The
image is balanced and isn’t overly tall.
Based on the analysis, two separate image ratio charts were

derived from the synthesis of the case study research. These charts
will form the fundamental image ratio parameters when
constructing an architectural rendering. Figure 6.13, 1:1.3 Image
Ratio
116
6.4 Viewpoint
In architectural renderings, the viewpoint represents the point from which the viewer
sees the object or scene. “Representations of architecture are heavily influenced by the
relationship between the viewer and the object being viewed.”1 The position of the viewpoint
will ultimately impact the perception of the architecture that the author of the rendering
intends to explain. Therefore, it is important to understand what types of viewpoints the
rendering can be constructed from and what viewpoints best describe certain aspects of
architecture. In this section, the four basic types of viewpoints will be explained, followed by
the synthesis of the previous chapters case study analysis. The results from the analysis will
further construct the fundamental principles concerning viewpoint in an architectural
rendering. In addition, several examples will provide visual support in the explanation of the
different types of viewpoints and what application methods exist.
The four basic classification of viewpoint are identified by the position of the camera in
relation to the object being viewed and the angle to the ground plane. The four different
viewpoint types, shown in figure 6.14, are; 1 Below Eye Level (BEL), 2 Eye Level (EL), 3 Above
Eye Level (AEL) and 4 Bird’s Eye Level (Bird’s). In digital software programs such as 3DS Max,
Cinema4D, Maya, Lightwave, etc., the viewpoint originates in a 3d camera. The 3d camera
settings are similar to a real world camera, which allows the 3d camera to simulate real world
conditions. These settings allow the architectural image to render as if a picture is being taken.
It is important to note that the camera angle and position to the ground plane construct the
viewpoint. For example, a camera positioned below human eye level in a 3d model and in
"
"&(
'%"&
!
%$&
Figure 6.14, Viewpoint Diagram
1 Laseau, Paul. Architectural Representation Handbook. McGraw-Hill. New York. 2000. p.63
117
scale will construct a BEL image.
Furthermore, if a 3d camera is placed
at human eye level in a 3d model the
resulting image will be an eye level,
EL, image. The following section will
explain the below eye level, BEL,
viewpoint.
Below Eye Level Figure 6.15, below eye level example. Labtop
In the below eye level, BEL, viewpoint, the camera angle is placed below the viewers
theoretical eye level. By placing the camera viewpoint below the eye level, the scenes upward
attention is strongly accentuated, as seen in figure 6.15. In addition, there is a dramatic
increase in the scale differences of people, placed objects and architecture. This dramatic scale
differential can be seen in figure 6.15, as people increase in scale by 10 times between
background and foreground. The various locations within the scene allow the placed people
to have various eye level positions. This viewpoints geometric location is similar to that of an
adolescent child or in some cases even lower to the ground plane. By constructing the image
from the BEL viewpoint the space within the architecture has a dramatic impact as seen in
figure 6.16.
Based on the case study analysis results, the BEL viewpoint is rarely use, occurring in
10% of all 3 image classifications. However, in the few cases, Luxigon, Labtop & Frank Lloyd
Wright, that did render with BEL viewpoints, the results were extremely successful. The
conclusion can be made that the BEL viewpoint is more unfamiliar to rendering processes
Figure 6.16. Below eye level example. Luxigon.
118
Figure 6.17. Eye level example. MIR.
rather than being a viewpoint of low quality. Next we will look at the most frequently used
viewpoint, eye level.
Eye Level
The eye level, EL, viewpoint is the most implemented camera angle. The viewpoint
location is set at the eye level of the viewer and the angle to the viewing object is set at zero,
as seen in figure 6.14. Based on the case study analysis, the EL viewpoint is used 62% of the
time. The frequency of its use can be attributed to its understandability. The human
experience happens at eye level, we see the world from this viewpoint, which helps us relate
to architectural rendering representations. In figure 6.17, the red line represents the horizon
line, which cuts through the eye level of every placed person of average height. In EL
viewpoint images, the eye level and the horizon line are equal to each other and constant
across the depth of the image space, which means, as the image recedes further towards a
convergence with the horizon line the eye level is still the same as the horizon line.
Above Eye Level
The above eye level, AEL, viewpoint accounts for any position of the viewing window
or camera above the eye level, up to a 45 degree angle to the viewing object, as seen in figure
6.14. Based on the case study analysis, the AEL viewpoint is used 26% of the time and is the
second most common viewpoint in rendered images. This viewpoint is typically used to
provide a macro overview of an architectural project. By positioning the viewpoint or camera
AEL, the ground plane space opens to the view, allowing the geometry of the architecture and
the landscape of the scene to be described in more detail. In figure 6.18, the viewpoint is
positioned slightly above the eye level. The red horizontal line indicates the horizon line and
119
Figure 6.18, Above Eye Level Viewpoint, Vyonyx. Figure 6.19, John
Francis Bentley. 1861.
the vertical line indicates the primary vanishing point. The blue lines indicate the eye level
lines, which help to illustrate the eye level plane below the AEL viewpoint. In this example the
ground plane opens to the viewer and the landscape is further described. In figure 6.19, the
horizon line and primary vanishing point are indicated in red and the eye level plane is
indicated in blue. In this image the AEL viewpoint once again opens the ground plane to
further description by giving clearer views of the architectural detail on the ground plane and
how the space is occupied. The view brings the viewer into the space without being a
participant but rather an observer. In figure 6.20, the AEL viewpoint is positioned higher than
the previous examples, closer to a 30 degree angle from the ground plane to the main viewing
object, which in this case is the foreground architectural object. This viewpoint captures the
architecture as if the image were taken from the building top across the street. This viewpoint
tends to be more familiar and relatable than the Bird’s eye level viewpoint, which could explain
its frequent use. The AEL viewpoint can successfully explain the richness and complexity of
contextual surroundings for the architectural vision, which equally increases the level of
difficulty in executing such and image. If done well, the AEL viewpoint is very expressive.
Bird’s Eye Level
The bird’s eye level viewpoint,

BIRD’s, is placed at a 45 degree angle
or greater above the main viewing
object, as shown in figure 6.14. The
angle gives an overview of subject
and it’s surrounding context in great
detail. The expanse of the imagery
extends through the scene, which Figure 6.20, Above Eye Level Viewpoint, Luxigon.
120
Figure 6.21. Birdʼs Eye Level Viewpoint, MIR. Figure 6.22. Lee Dunnette.
requires a great deal of detail and development. The case study analysis shows that the BIRD’s
viewpoint is used in only 2% of the total images analyzed. There may be several reasons why
the frequency of use is so low, but knowing the descriptive nature of the viewpoint, the level
of difficulty in the construction of the scene and the unfamiliarity of the viewpoint in real life,
may explain the decision to avoid the BIRD’s viewpoint when constructing an architectural
rendering. In the research analysis several additional findings were revealed. The main
discovery is that the horizon line is visible in more that 98% of the images. This makes a lot of
sense. If the horizon line is not present in a scene the depth of the scene is shortened, which
limits the connection to the horizon and ultimately to the possibility of something beyond. By
cutting off the potential of the horizon line, the image is limited. This difference can be seen in
the two examples above. In figure 6.21, the expansive contextual space surrounding the
architecture articulates the openness of the scene. In this rendered scene, the horizon line is
indicated in a red line, by having the horizon line, the depth of the image increases. In
contrast, the BIRD’s viewpoint image in figure 6.22 shows no horizon line, which shortens the
image and creates a feeling of incompleteness. One can conclude that the horizon line must
be visible in an architectural rendering with a BIRD’s viewpoint.
In summary, the viewpoint is a crucial step in constructing an architectural rendering

and based on the research the viewpoint parameter suggests that the EL viewpoint, used 62%
of the time, is the most common, followed by the AEL viewpoint, used 26% of the time, the
BEL viewpoint, used 10% of the time and the BIRD’s viewpoint, used only 2% of the time.
Ultimately the decision is up to the author of the architectural rendering, but the statistics
provide a framework towards making the viewpoint decision.
121
6.5 Focal Point
The focal point can be described as the identified main focus of interest in an image.
This focal point is intended to be the primary point of interest and where the viewers eye will
ultimately rest for an extended period of time. Before the focal point is identified, the author
of the image should ask the question: what story is being told? What is it about the
architecture that needs to be described through image and how can it be presented. The
establishment of the focal point creates hierarchy within the image dynamics. By constructing
an architectural rendering around a focal point, secondary points of interest fall into place and
act as supporting elements within the hierarchy of the architectural rendering. While there are
existing precepts that aid in the placement of the focal point, which will be describe in section
6.7, the focal point location is up to the author of the image to decide. It can be centered,
offset, high or low in the image. The most important thing is to identify what the focal point is
or what the author of the image intends to present.
Since the focus of this research is to improve the quality of architectural renderings,
the main subject or object within the rendering will most likely be architecture. The question
the author must then ask themselves is what about the architecture needs to be explained?
What are the key aspects of the building design that warrant rendered image representation?
In buildings there are clear hierarchy’s of building programs and organizations of space. For
example, there are fronts, backs and sides of buildings, entrances, public courts, bathrooms
and mechanical rooms. The job of the author of the image is to understand and identify the
activities of these spaces and render the architecture accordingly. For example, figure 6.23
identifies the main entrance of the architecture as the primary focal point, indicated with a red
dot and dashed circle. By identifying and positioning the focal point in the BEL viewpoint,
secondary focal points emerge in the development of the scene. In this example, the adjacent
Figure 6.23, Focal Point Diagram, Luxigon.

122
building, the tree covered grove and the foreground open space become secondary points of
interest. It is important to recognize that the primary intent of the architectural rendering is
not to showcase the architectural object but rather to showcase the space that the
architecture creates and how it engages the contextual setting.
The focal point should be clear, easy to recognize and properly accentuate the major
aspects of the architectural design. If the focal point is not identified appropriately, the
attention of the viewer is lost on unintentional image content. For example, figure 6.24
identifies the main focal point, indicated with a red dot. This focal point is the main entrance
to the building. It is clear and accentuated in the image by the height of the architecture from
the AEL viewpoint. The human activity and the walkway further support the focal point. In
contrast, figure 6.25 does not clearly define the focal point and in the process the focal point
defaults to the main tree blocking the architecture. In the case of architectural renderings the
two primary goals are to showcase the spatial qualities, that the architecture creates, and
showcase the formal qualities of the architecture in its contextual settings. In the case of
figure 6.25, the importance of both the spatial and formal qualities of the architecture are
given less attention, while the tree is given primary attention. This would be fine if the author
of the rendering intended to
showcase the beauty of the tree in the
parking lot. However, this is an
architectural rendering, intended to
present the architecture.
In summary, the identification

of the focal point is a fundamental
principle in the construction of an
Figure 6.24, MIR. 2011.
architectural rendering. Knowing and
understanding the design and how it
engages the contextual surroundings,
helps the author identify the main
focal point. Understanding the
importance of the focal point helps
develop the secondary points of
interest, creating compositional
hierarchy within the architectural
Figure 6.25. WAN. 2010.
rendering.
123
6.6 Horizon Line
The horizon line is the apparent line that

divides the earth from the sky, it occurs at the
intersection of the two. The word horizon derives
from the Greek "ὁρίζων κύκλος" (horizōn kyklos),
"separating circle", from the verb "ὁρίζω" (horizō), "to

divide, to separate." It is a crucial element to Figure 6.26, high horizon line.
recognize when constructing a rendering. Depending
on the position in the image, the horizon line can
greatly affect the attention of the viewer on either the
foreground, middle-ground or background. If the
horizon line is placed high in the image, the sky is
shortened and the foreground becomes more of the
image focus, as seen in figure 6.26. When the horizon Figure 6.27, mid horizon line,
line splits the image in half, as in figure 6.27, the sky
and the earth are given equal attention. Further,
when the horizon line occurs in the lower half of the
image the foreground is shortened and the sky is
given more attention, as seen in figure 6.28. The
placement of the horizon line occurs in different
positions in an architectural rendering based on the Figure 6.28, low horizon line.
viewpoint type. This section will examine the analysis
results from the previous case studies regarding horizon line and synthesize the information
into principle guides in the placement of the horizon line in architectural rendered images.
BEL Horizon Line
Below eye level, BEL, viewpoint images are used only 10% of the time, based on the
case study analysis results. However, the overall quality of the images showed to be of the
highest quality and extremely effective in their representations of architecture. Furthermore,
the average analysis results from the below eye level horizon line category shows that the
majority of images constructed from the BEL viewpoint have a horizon line occur in the
10-35% range. This range is illustrated in figures 6.29, 6.30 & 6.31, which show the horizon line
124
$%#
$%# $%#
!"# !"# !"#

Figure 6.29, Square BEL Figure 6.30, Landscape BEL horizon line Figure 6.31, Portrait
horizon line range. range. BEL horizon line
range.
range for all three image types with the BEL viewpoint. While this range reflects the majority
of images, it’s important to note that the highest concentration of images fell into a smaller
range, between 20-25%. However, the overall range included most of the highest quality
images.
Below are two examples of BEL viewpoint renderings. In each rendering the horizon
line is identified as a red line. In figure 6.32, the horizon line is set at 42%, showing the horizon
line outside of the identified range. In this image the foreground floor competes with the
entrance focal point. The viewers attention is pulled by the bright floor away from the
architectural design causing an unresolved image. The result, is the attention of the viewer
being pulled between two moments in the image. In contrast, figure 6.33 shows a BEL
viewpoint image with the horizon line set at 12%. In this image the foreground is shortened
by the low horizon line. Although the foreground is shortened, the richness and complexity of
the foreground is not lost, it is just condensed. The low horizon line gives the focal point its
necessary importance, in this case the building tower and the public space below. In addition,
the spatial openness and amount of sky gives the image space to breathe, it does not feel
constrained or crowded. These examples demonstrate the importance of a low horizon line
placement in the construction of an architectural rendering with the BEL viewpoint. When
constructing a rendering, the horizon line parameter will improve the quality of the image.
Figure 6.32, 42% Horizon line. Figure 6.33, 12% Horizon Line, Luxigon. 2011.
WAN. 2011.
125
$%#
$%# $%#
!"# !"# !"#

Figure 6.34, Square EL Figure 6.35, Landscape EL horizon line range. Figure 6.36, Portrait
horizon line range. EL horizon line
range.
EL Horizon Line
Based on the results from the case study analysis, images with the EL viewpoint have a
horizon line range between 10-35%, with the highest concentration of images between the
20-25% range. The results are consistent with the BEL viewpoint results and therefore the
range is the same.
Below are two examples of EL viewpoint renderings, which show the difference
between a high horizon line compared to a low horizon line. In figure, 6.37 the horizon line is
shown in red and is set at 50% of the image. Similar to the figure 6.32, the foreground floor
becomes the main focal point or viewer resting point in the image. As the image is surveyed
the eye wonders through the image looking for a resting point, possibly on the architecture,
but ultimately the eye is drawn to the floor and the two figures in the foreground. The
architecture doesn’t even play a tertiary roll, it’s an afterthought. In comparison, figure 6.38,
the horizon line is set at 30% as shown in red. In this image the shortening of the foreground
places the architecture slightly below the middle of the image. This gives more room to the
sky above the architecture. Furthermore, the lowering of the horizon line provides an
opportunity for the architecture in the foreground to have a more dramatic and spatial effect,
creating a contrast to the background architecture. The identified horizon line principle
parameters provides a framework to construct a quality EL viewpoint rendering.
Figure 6.37, 50% Horizon Line. Vyonyx. 2011. Figure 6.38, 30% Horizon Line. Vyonyx. 2011.
126
$"# $"# %#$
!"# !"# !!!"#$!
Figure 6.40, Landscape AEL horizon line range. Figure 6.41, Portrait
Figure 6.39, Square AEL
AEL horizon line
horizon line range.
range.
AEL Horizon Line
Based on the results from the case study analysis, the majority of AEL viewpoint
images have a horizon line that occurs between the 20-50% range. This range is reflected in
figures 6.39, 6.40 & 6.41. The 20-50% range represents a framework to construct high quality
AEL renderings from. However, the highest concentration of high quality renderings occurred
between the 20-30% range. The two examples below illustrate the difference in the
placement of the horizon line.
The first image, figure 6.42, shows the horizon line set at 55%, which is 5% above the
desired range. In this image the sky is shortened and the focus of the image places emphasis
on the foreground. The architecture does play an important roll in the image and the entrance
focal point is positioned well. However, the image does feel contained and limited spatially. In
contrast, the second image, figure 6.43, has the horizon line set at 24%. This example shows
the vastness of the open sky contrasting the richness of the middle-ground architecture. By
placing the horizon line at 24%, the architecture is placed slightly below the middle of the
image and the main tower focal point is centered between the top and bottom of the image.
The results of the analysis established the AEL horizon line parameters, which should
result in high quality images, but the more condensed range should produce the best results.
Figure 6.42, Kilograph. 2011. Figure 6.43, MIR. 2011.
127
!"# !"#$ !!!"#$!
$"# %"$ %#$
Figure 6.44, Square BIRDʼs Figure 6.45, Landscape BIRDʼs horizon line Figure 6.46, Portrait
horizon line range. range. BIRDʼs horizon line
range.
BIRD’s Horizon Line
Based on the results from the case study analysis, the majority of BIRD’s viewpoint
images have a horizon line that occurs between the 60-90% range. This range is reflected in
figures 6.44, 6.45 & 6.46. In the research the importance of the horizon line in bird’s eye level
viewpoint images was identified as previously stated section 6.4. All of the images that failed
to include the horizon resulted in confined images that lacked depth. This point is further
illustrated in the two images below.
In figure 6.47 the horizon line is set at 80%. In the image the horizon and the setting
sun create depth in the image by providing a prospective view to gaze upon. In addition, the
glowing haze created by the sun, ocean and horizon create a contrast to the architectural
object being showcased. In contrast, figure 6.48 shows no horizon line. The depth of the
image is immediately shorten, limiting the spatial openness, as in the previous three examples.
The quality of the image on the right is excellent, but when compared with the image on the
left, it is clearly missing the depth that the presence of the horizon offers.
In summary, the horizon line ranges for each viewpoint, construct the horizon line
parameters, which, if followed, will improve the quality of an architectural rendering.
Figure 6.47, MIR. 2011. Figure 6.48, Vyonyx. 2011.
128
6.7 Rule of Thirds & ¼ Division
Two grid systems were used in the collection of image data from the case study
images of the three classifications; Contemporary, Historical and Photographic. These grids
divided the images into odd and even parts. The rule of thirds, a well established axiom in
photography, art and design, divides the composition into 9 equal parts. The intersection of
the division or grid lines are called power points or points of interest. The rule of thirds
suggests that main focal points should be located near these points. Furthermore, the vertical
and horizontal division lines serve as alignment guides, which the objects or subjects of the
composition should also be aligned with. The rule of third is believed to create tension,
energy, interest and dynamic relationships in image compositions that would not be achieved
if the main focal points were just centered in the image. The second grid divided the images
into quarters, creating 16 equal parts. This grid was used to identify significant points of
interest that occurred at the intersection points of the ¼ grid or in alignment with the
horizontal and vertical lines. Based on the results of the case study analysis, 76% of the images
used the Rule of Thirds or ¼ division grid in the composition of the rendering. This suggests
that the Rule of Third and the ¼ division grids are valid guides in the construction of an
The following architectural images, figure 6.49 - 6.54, illustrate the Rule of Thirds and
the ¼ division grid, which clearly demonstrate the use of the grids in the composition of the
photographs and renderings. These images show a dynamic range of building types and
rendering styles, which all make use of the grid guidelines. The result, is a variety of dynamic
images that capture the energy of place, atmosphere, mood, depth and harmony. It is
important to note that the majority of images used the Rule of Third as the main guide in the
composition of images.
Figure 6.49, Building edge aligned at Rule of third power point. Luxigon. 2011
129
Figure 6.50, Architecture edge is aligned at center division, focal point aligned at ¼ intersection. MIR.
Figure 6.51. Julius Shulman. Figure 6.52. Bill Hedrich.
Figure 6.53. Richard Hussey. Figure 6.54. MIR.
130
6.8 Building Proportion
The building proportion describes the percentage of the main architectural object in
the rendering to the entire image. It does not account for the surrounding contextual
buildings. Since architectural renderings represent a multitude of building types in different
landscape settings the focus of the data collection was to isolate the main architectural object
and record the percentage for further analysis. Through analysis, two key factors were
identified. First, the images that received 100% building percentages were interior images,
accounting for 98% of the cases. The average results, figure 6.55, show that 27% of the images
had a building percentage of 100%, which primarily accounts for interior images. Second, the
majority of the exterior images have a building percentage range between 22-44%, shown in
figure 6.55. The average results provide the building proportion parameter. A framework to
use as a guideline when constructing architectural renderings.
The following two examples show the impact the building proportion has on an
architectural rendering. In figure 6.56 the building proportion accounts for 75% of the image.
The result is a crowded and tight image that is unable to describe any contextual relationships.
The rendering leaves no room for the architecture itself to breath. In contrast, figure 6.57 the
building proportion accounts for 28% of the image. In using the smaller percentage range the
rendering has room to tell the 24 27
% of Images
contextual story, how it relates to the 16 14

6 8
surroundings and how the building 3 2 0
engages human activity. These 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 100
examples exemplify the importance of Building %
the building proportion in renderings.
Figure 6.55. Building Percentage Case Study Averages.
Figure 6.56. Tabanlioglu DMC Ankara, Figure 6.57. ArteFactory rendering, 2011.
131
6.9 Leading Lines & Paths
Leading lines and paths are powerful

compositional techniques used in
photography and art. There roll is to serve the
focal point or main object/subject in an image
composition. They achieve this by using the
geometry or lines of the composition to lead
the viewers eye to certain intended focal
points. In addition, paths play a similar roll in
the leading of the viewers attention through
the image to a point of resolve. The human Figure 6.58. Crystal Cathedral. Photographer:
Julius Shulman. 1984.
experience understands the movement that
paths provide, they are relatable and therefore
effective in their capacity to lead the viewer.
It’s important to understand that the lines of
geometry or paths within the architectural
rendering are secondary or supporting
elements.
Four examples have been included to Figure 6.59. RenderTaxi GBR. 2011.
illustrate the use of leading lines and paths in

architectural images. Each figure is illustrated
to show the effectiveness of the leading line in
supporting the focal point of an image. In
figure 6.58, the lines of building and streets
lead to the lighted cathedral focal point. In
figure 6.59, the paths and stream lead to the
Figure 6.60. Dbox. 2011.
entry of the building. In figure 6.60, the lines
of the path and railing lead the eye towards
the skyscraper at the horizon focal point.
Finally, in figure 6.61 the lines of the steps and
main architecture lead the viewer to the main
focal point positioned at the entrance. These
examples illustrate the compositional strength
of leading lines & paths.
Figure 6.61. MIR. 2011.
132
6.10 Framing & Placement of Secondary Elements
In architectural renderings the two

primary compositional subjects or focal points are
the formal aspects of the architectural design and
the spatial aspects of the architecture. Either of
these two elements can be the primary focus of
the image. Once these elements are established, a
hierarchy is created within the composition of the
image. This hierarchy is built upon secondary
compositional elements. These secondary
elements are comprised of a multitude of various
objects, some of which include, people, cars,
vegetation, bikes, animals and surrounding
contextual buildings, to name a few. These
secondary elements are determined depending
on the regional, urban, landscape or contextual
Figure 6.62. Marina City. Photographer: Bill
conditions. There is no set package of secondary Engdahl. Hedrich-Blessing. 1963.
elements as each rendering is different. It is

important to understand that these elements are
placed within the image in order to support the
primary subject or focal point and that they serve
a secondary, supporting role.
Framing is a visual arts technique used in

the composition of images that directs the focus
of the viewers attention to the primary focal point
in the image. The elements of the images used to
frame the focal point can be any of the placed
secondary elements. The photography case
studies revealed the strength of this technique as
seen in two examples from Julius Shulman and
Hedrich-Blessing. In figure 6.62, the image of the
Marina City towers are framed by the secondary
building structure. Also, in figure 6.63, the Lever
Figure 6.63. Lever House. Skidmore, Owings
House building is framed by the column and & Merril. Photographer: Julius Shulman. 1959.
133
ceiling of the secondary building structure. In
architectural renderings, the framing of the
architecture or space created by the architecture
can be done by the surrounding contextual
buildings as seen in figure 6.64. In this image the
buildings create a v-shaped frame that focuses
the viewers attention towards the central
architectural object. The placement of the Figure 6.64. Labtop. 2010.
secondary elements such as trees, people and

seating areas also help frame the main focal point.
Similarly, in figure 6.65 the main architectural
focal point is framed by the placed trees overhead
and the placed groups of people. The trees
squeeze the foreground of the image creating a
protected viewpoint. Furthermore, the people
are positioned on both sides of the main focal
point. This creates a direct view of the primary Figure 6.65. RenderTaxi GBR. 2011.
architectural object. In the final example, figure

6.66, the placed trees and darkening of the upper
right corner sky create a frame around the main
architectural focal point. In addition, the placed
trees in front of the surrounding buildings focus
the attention of the viewer to the main building
where there is no obstruction.
The framing technique is subtle and

effective in highlighting the main focal point in
architectural renderings and based on the case
study analysis, over 95% of the images used this
simple technique.
Figure 6.66. MIR. 2011.
134
6.11 Depth
Architectural renderings are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional

space. In real life, people use their visual ability to perceive the world in three-dimension
through depth cues received from the visual field. In a similar way, architectural renderings
use depth cues, such as overlapping, aerial perspective, shades and shadows, texture gradient,
size perspective and linear perspective as defined in psychology. These depth cues help
define perspective representation in a two-dimensional graphic image. As Erwin Panofsky in
his Perspective as Symbolic Form, points out, every era had its own perceptive, a system to
represent the depth of space. It is only during the Renaissance that the mathematically-based
technique of linear perceptive was invented by Filippo Brunelleschi and codified as perspectiva
artificialis by Leon Battista Alberti, who wrote about perspective in his De Pictura of 1436.” The
system of linear perspective is based on the concept that “given a center of projection,
viewpoint, the image of infinite points in space can be determined if, interposing a plane
between this center and objects in space, it is possible to draw (on the plane) the intersection
between the plane and the “pyramid” of visual rays”, as represented in Albrecht Durer
engraving, figure 6.67. “This concept is identical to that encoded in the algorithms underlying
the perspective view in a CAD program: the center of projection, or point of view, coincides
with the camera, its projection on the plane coincides with the target.”2 This means that the
mathematical rules of perspective are accurately represented in renderings produced by CAD
software. However, the majority of architectural renderings are not 100% produced in CAD
software such as 3ds Max, which means that the author of the image must understand the
rules and principles of linear perspective to accurately represent depth in the completion of
the rendering composition. While there are many ways to achieve depth in a two-dimensional
image, the depth principle consists of only two ideas. The first simply accounts for the
Figure 6.67. Albrecht Durer engraving. Man Drawing a Reclining Woman, 1525.
135
Figure 6.68. Luxigon. 2011. Figure 6.69, Case Study House
#22. Photographer: Julius
Shulman. 1960.
accurate representation of linear perspective and depth cues in a two-dimensional rendering.

Since most architectural renderings are processed in a post-production program such as
Photoshop or After Effects, it is important to understand how to blend the additionally placed
elements with the accurately represented perspective, as if they belong. The second, is depth
created in the composition by foreground, middle-ground and background elements that
create interest and movement through the image.
These two aspects of depth can be seen in figure 6.68. First, the rendering clearly is an
accurate representation of perspective, the 1-point perspective has a strong central vanishing
point and the objects in the image are sized accordingly to their position in space. Second, the
foreground is detailed, with several points of interest to stimulate viewer attention across the
front of the image. The middle-ground architecture is portrayed as a relaxing destination and
the background mountains and light source act as a focal point to gaze upon. These two
compositional elements form the foundation of the image depth. Furthermore, the Case
Study House photograph by Julius Shulman, figure 6.69, shows the same two aspects of
depth. First, the image depth of perspective is clearly articulated in the lines of geometry that
extend to the horizon vanishing points of the two-point perspective. Second, the foreground
shows a lounge chair as a point of interest. The middle-ground shows a dynamic living space
in use with human activity and the background is a majestic view of the city at night. The
movement of viewer attention between all three compositional grounds is energetic.
In summary, the depth principle accounts for the fundamental accuracy of the
perspective and the dynamic development of the composition grounds in an architectural
rendering.
136
6.12 Preliminary Experiments
In this section the 10 principles, derived from case study research will be tested on a
control subject. Two separate perspectives will be tested by creating two renderings for each
perspective viewpoint. The first rendering will not use the identified principles. While, the
second rendering, from the same perspective viewpoint, will use the identified principles. The
two images will be compared side by side and analyzed using the established data collection
method. This process will be applied to both of the perspective renderings. Further, a
conclusion will summarize the comparative results.
In this preliminary experiment the test subject is an architectural residence designed

by Stephen Grant Green. The project is located on the Big Island of Hawai’i. The architectural
program consists of a main living area, kitchen, dining area, 3 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms and a
horse stable. The site is located in the Hakuela homestead of Kamuela, in the hills of the
Kohala mountain. The terrain consists of grassy rolling fields with views of Mauna Kea, the
highest mountain in Hawai’i. In this test subject the architectural rendering is intended to
capture the atmosphere of the place and showcase the architecture in the landscape.
The first image, figure 6.70, is taken from the front corner of the proposed house. The
image type is landscape. The image ratio is 1:1.3. The viewpoint is from below eye level. The
focal point is the front corner of the building. The horizon line is set at 41%. The main focal
point is aligned with the right vertical Rule of Third grid line. The building ratio is 25%. There
are no major leading line indications. There is no framing with placed secondary elements.
Finally, there is depth to the overall image, from the foreground through to the background.
The second image, figure 6.71, is taken from the same location. The image type is landscape.
The image ratio is 1:2.14. The viewpoint is from below eye level. The focal point is the front
corner of the building. The focal point is aligned with the right Rule of third grid line and the
left edge of the building is aligned with the left Rule of third grid line. The building ratio is
21%. The horizontality of the image leads the viewers attention across the image. The placed
trees and animals frame the architectural focal point. In addition the cloudy fog frame the
building. Finally, the image demonstrates depth and movement between the foreground to
the background. These two images are shown again in figures 6.72 & 6.73 with the ⅓ & ¼
division grid overlay, illustrating the different principles and their application in each separate
137
Comparative Rendering Test
Image A
Figure 6.70. Kimball Residence. Stephen Grant Green. Rendered by author. 2011.
Image B
138
Comparative Analysis
Image A
1/4
1/3
HL 41%
Image B
1/4
1/3
HL 21%
139
The second architectural perspective rendering is taken from the viewpoint between
the driveway and entrance to the house. The view showcases the covered front door entrance
and the framed view of the landscape setting. The representation describes the materiality of
the architecture and the spatial experience created by the architecture.
The first image, figure 6.74, of the second set of renderings is a landscape image. The
image ratio is 1:1.45. The viewpoint is below eye level. The focal point is the entry to the
house and the setting landscape view. The horizon line is set at 48%. The front door is slightly
aligned with the left Rule of Third vertical grid line. The building ratio is 30%. The geometry of
the building create leading lines towards the primary landscape focal point. The building
geometry frames the focal point. Finally, the image demonstrates accurate visual depth cues
and maintains a well balanced foreground, middle-ground and background. The second
image, figure 6.75, is taken from the same location. The image type is also landscape. The
image ratio is 1:1.8. The viewpoint is below eye level. The primary focal point is the framed
horizon setting and the second focal point is the main entry to the house. The horizon line is
set at 28%. The lower right Rule of Third power point is aligned with the main focal point
horizon setting and the central ¼ division grid line is aligned with the main entry. The building
ratio is 33%. The geometry of the house lead the viewers attention towards the main focal
point and secondary focal point. The main focal point is framed by the building geometry and
the placed trees. Finally, the visual depth of the image is accurate from the foreground thru
the background. Furthermore, the addition of the light breaking through the clouds adds to
the depth of the image. These two images are shown again in figures 6.76 & 6.77 with the ⅓ &
¼ division grid overlay, illustrating the different principles and their application in each
separate architectural rendering.
In summary, the two scenes showed two examples of architectural renderings from
the same viewpoint. The first rendering for each scene was an example of a rendering that
wasn’t comprised of all of the identified principles. The second rendering for each scene was
an example of an architectural rendering with all of the identified principles. Based on the
comparative test, the evidence suggests that the quality of the second rendering for each
scene significantly improved. Thus validating the fundamental principles in the preliminary
rendering experiments.
140
Comparative Rendering Test
Image A
Image B
141
Comparative Analysis
Image A
1/4
1/3
HL 48%
HL range between 10-35%
Image B
1/4
1/3
HL 28%
HL range between 10-35%
142
6.13 Summary
In this chapter, each of the 10 identified fundamental rendering principles were

explained in detail. Based on the case study analysis, the average results for each principle
were presented, providing a guideline framework to follow when constructing an architectural
rendering. Furthermore, a preliminary test was conducted to compare two renderings of the
same architectural object and the same viewpoint location. The first rendering was
constructed without the fundamental principles and the second rendering was constructed
with the fundamental principles. The two rendering results were then compared to verify a
difference in overall quality. The results clearly showed that the rendering constructed with
the identified rendering principles was significantly improved in overall quality. The
preliminary comparative tests showed that the 10 fundamental rendering principles work.
In the next chapter, experiments will be conducted on two separate architectural

building types in order to identify a sequential order of application of the 10 fundamental
rendering principles. The experiments will be conducted on 3d models using the 3ds Max
animation program and the V-Ray rendering plug-in.
143
Chapter 7 I Principle Experiments
7.1 Introduction
The previous chapter summarized the average results from image case study analysis
of the three tested image classifications and synthesized the data results into 10 fundamental
principles, which were then explained in detail. Each identified principle consists of
parameters identified through case study analysis, which formulate the guideline framework
of each principle. The principles were then tested on a preliminary subject, producing a
comparative study, which provided evidence of the successful quality improvement of the
architectural renderings. In this chapter, two separate building types will be modeled and
tested in the 3ds Max animation program, using the V-Ray rendering plug-in. Each building
type will provide three series of experiments with detailed explanation of the tests and results.
The experiments will test each principle individually in order to verify the validity of the
principle and to further identify a sequential order in the application of the principles.
7.2 Mimesis Museum
The first test subject for the principle experimentation is a medium scale , low lying art
museum designed by the Pritzker award winning architect, Alvaro SIza. The project location is
30 kilometers from Seoul in Paju Book City, South Korea. The Paju area is viewed as the “land of
promise” and the city was planned and established as an industrial city related specifically to
books. The city is young and the architecture is often called “mirrors of the era,” according to
city officials, which is contemporary, edgy and expressive. The city is a collection of
architecture that possess a dynamic range in styles. Within this young city, Alvaro Siza has
created a simple and peaceful flowing concrete form based on an idea of a traditional story of
the emperor and his love of cats. In the traditional story the emperor commissions an artist to
draw him an image of a cat. Seven years pass and the emperor grows impatient. Finally, the
emperor summons the artist and demands the drawing of the cat. The artist then takes a
blank piece of paper and swiftly draws the most sublime drawing of a cat the emperor has
ever seen. When asked how much the drawing is, the artist replies a number severely higher
than the emperor expected. When the emperor asks why the drawing is so much, since it only
took a few seconds, the artist replies, “this is true, but I have been drawing cats for seven years
now.” In the spirit of the traditional story, master architect Alvaro Siza generated the
144
Figure 7.01. Mimesis Museum. Alvaro Siza. Photgrapher: Fernando
Figure 7.02, Alvaro Siza Sketch,
Guerra. 2010.
courtesy Alvaro Siza via
arcspace.com
architectural form in a few swift stokes of his hand. The resulting conceptual drawing is a
representation of a lying cat and became the form of the museum, seen in figure 7.02. The
project was chosen as an experimental subject based on the significance of Alvaro Siza
contributions to the body of architecture, the success of the project in the architectural
community, the size and type of the building.
The 3d model was constructed in 3ds Max from drawings attained through the
arcspace.com website, which posted a collection of plans and sections courtesy the office of
Alvaro Siza. The 3d model was then rendered with the Chaos Group V-Ray rendering plug-in.
Upon completion of the 3d model, a basic white V-Ray material was applied to all of the
constructed models. This neutralized the representation of the renderings in order to isolate
the testing of the principles and limit the testing variables. The next step was establishing a V-
Ray light system by using an HDRI dome light and a V-Ray sun to simulate real world lighting
conditions. Once the light rig was set up, V-Ray cameras were placed to serve as the viewpoint
instrument responsible for capturing the rendered image. This V-Ray camera is a simulation of
a real world camera with identical camera setting that adjust the focal length, film gate, zoom
factor, f-number, shutter speed and ISO, to name a few. The next step was placing the camera
in the 3d model and testing the fundamental principles individually. The following images
represent the image results of the experiments. Each step tests an individual principle and
explain how the principle is applied in practice. Conclusions are then drawn for each
individual principle.
145
7.3 Mimesis Museum Experiment 1
Step 1 Image Type
Once the 3d model is set up for rendering, the

first step in the construction of a rendering is identifying
the image type. The landscape image type was used in
this first set of experiments. This can be setup in 3ds Max
in the output size category in common parameters in the
Render Setup window. Simply input the desired values
in the width and height categories, as seen in figure 7.03.
Once again, the image type principle is chosen by the
author of the image depending on the desired
representation.
Step 2 Image Ratio
The image ratio can be defined in 3ds Max in the

output size category, similar to the image type. Under
the width and height inputs is the image aspect Figure 7.03, Render Setup window.
category, which allows the user to define the desired 3DS Max and V-Ray.
image aspect ratio and lock it, in order to increase or

decrease the size of image settings without altering the
aspect ratio. In this experiment the image ratio was set Image Ratio 1:2.4
to 1:2.4 as seen in figure 7.04. The image ratio was

chosen from the higher aspect ratio category, which is
not common, but accounted for high quality images. Figure 7.04, 1:2.4 Image Ratio.
The aspect ratio of 1:2.4 is found in HD cinema theaters.
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint was determined by the V-Ray

camera position, which was set in the 3d model at 1.5
Figure 7.05, V-Ray camera position.
meters above the ground plane, which created a below
eye level, BEL, viewpoint from which the architecture is
seen.
146
Step 4 Focal Point
In the process of identifying the primary focal point the author of the rendering must
ask what the main aspect of the architecture is and how will it be positioned in relationship to
the camera viewpoint. In this experiment several examples show the rotation of the
architectural object in relation to the viewpoint. In figure 7.06 the viewpoint is positioned in
the back of the building. This example illustrates the importance of identifying the primary
focal point. In this case the back of the building is less interesting than the other parts of the
building. In figure 7.07, the camera viewpoint continues to rotate around the architecture in
an attempt to identify a viewpoint that warrants further descriptive development. Finally, in
figure 7.08, the camera viewpoint is positioned in the front corner of the building, capturing
the main entry as the focal point of the rendering. This entry point is a crucial element in the
architecture and the construction of the rendering around this focal point is justified.
There are multiple opportunities is each project to render well constructed scenes.
Understanding the architecture and hierarchy within the organization of spaces will aid in the
identification of the focal point. In this experiment the focal point principle is tested through
the below renderings. The result is the identification of viewpoint position in relationship to
the primary focal point of the architecture that is deserving of further development.
1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
HL HL
Step 2 Focal Point I

Step 2 Focal Point I
Figure 7.06, Rotation of the 3D model. Figure 7.07, Rotation of the 3D model.
1/4
Image Ratio 1:2
1/3
HL
Step 2 Focal
1 7.08,
Figure RatioI I 1:2
ImagePoint
Identification Image
of focal Type I
point. Landscape Viewpoint I Eye Level
147
Step 5 Horizon Line
Based on the case study averages the horizon line, HL, range for a below eye level
viewpoint rendering is between 10-35%. In this set of experiments the position of the
viewpoint and focal point is maintained. The horizon line is then tested at multiple positions
in the rendered image. The horizon line can be established in two different ways within the
3ds Max program. First the camera is positioned in its x,y,z location, seen in figure 7.09. The V-
Ray camera, when placed, has a target setting, which activates the manual controls of the
Figure 7.09, V-Ray camera positioned at eye level, parallel to the ground plane.
target. As a default setting the camera target is position on the same plane as the camera.
When the V-Ray camera viewport is activated the default view places the horizon line at the
center of the viewport or 50% of the view, shown in figure 7.10. The first method to change
the position of the horizon line is to activate the controls of the camera target and move the
target vertically in its x,y,z position, shown in figure 7.11. This shifts the orientation of the
Figure 7.10, V-Ray camera viewport default horizon line setting.
148
Figure 7.12, V-Ray
Figure 7.11, V-Ray camera target moved vertically. camera settings.
camera viewing direction and drops the horizon line in the viewport, thus rendering the
horizon line lower in the image. This method causes a vertical shift of the geometry, which can
cause too much distortion. The vertical distortion can be adjusted in the vertical shift setting,
seen in figure 7.12, which counters the vertical shift and straightens the geometry. The second
method is to maintain the same plane of the camera target, parallel to the ground plane and
adjust the vertical offset settings in the V-Ray camera settings, shown in figure 7.14. This
technique moves the horizon line vertically, resulting in the new position of the horizon line in
the view and ultimately the rendered scene, shown in figure 7.13. Further, this technique
maintains the integrity of the vertical elements, causing no vertical shift. Either of the two
techniques work and in all of these experiments the second technique was used to render out
each horizon line experiment.
Figure 7.13, V-Ray camera viewport. -.15 horizontal offset. Figure 7.14, V-Ray
camera settings.
149
Here are the results of the horizon line rendering experiments. In figure 7.15, the
horizon line is set at 50% and the HL range is illustrated. In this experiment the HL is clearly
seen as too high. The building is too close to the top of the image, leaving no room above. In
figure 7.16, the HL is set at 32%. Finally, in figure 7.17, the HL is set at 6%. The results from the
experiment show the shortening of the foreground and increasing of the background. As the
HL descends it gets to a point where the foreground is completely cut from the image,
resulting in an unbalanced image. In this batch of experiments the horizon line location was
finally set at 14%, which later changed to 20% in the Rule of Thirds experiments. These
decisions can change as the image is developed. These experiments are intended to illustrate
the major differences between horizon lines outside of the identified 10-35% HL range and
horizon lines within the range.
HL 50%
Figure 7.15. 50% horizon line. 3D model of Mimesis Museum.
HL 32%
HL 6%
150
Step 6 Rule of Third & ¼ Division
The next experiment tested the placement of the focal point in relation to the Rule of
Thirds and ¼ division. Currently, there is no ⅓ and ¼ grid camera viewport overlay in 3ds Max.
However, the viewport configuration can be setup with a Rule of Third viewport overlay, which
will serve as a guide within the 3ds Max program. In 3ds Max, right click the + sign in the
upper left corner of the viewport window, scroll down and select configure. This opens the
viewport configuration, shown in figure 7.18. In the Safe Frames tab, as highlighted, check the
Action Safe and Title Safe, then set the horizontal and vertical settings to 66, as shown. This
will set ⅓ division grid overlay in the viewport, activate the viewport overlay by hitting Shift +
F on the keyboard, figure 7.19. This will setup a Rule of Third viewport overlay in 3DS Max.
Figure 7.18. 3DS Max Rule of Third viewport configuration.
Figure 7.19, Rule of Third viewport guide.
151
The images below represent the rendering experiments that moved the position of the
focal point across the image, testing different alignments with the two grid systems. In figure
7.20, the primary focal point is offset to the far right of the image. This position leaves no room
to represent the space in front of the museum. In figure 7.21, the focal point is placed
between the ¼ and ⅓ division lines. Finally, in figure 7.22, the primary focal point is aligned
with the left Rule of Third line. This alignment opens the space created by the front courtyard
near the entrance and aligns the building with the Rule of Third power points.
1/4
1/3
HL 14%
Figure 7.20. 3D model of Mimesis Museum offset to the far right of image.
1/4
1/3
HL 14%
Figure 7.21. 3D model of Mimesis Museum placed between two division lines.
1/4
1/3
HL 20%
Figure 7.22, 3D model of Mimesis Museum aligned with ⅓ division grid.
152
Step 7 Building Ratio
The building ratio experiments show several tests that demonstrate increases and
decreases in the building ratio. In figure 7.23, the test rendering shows the building
percentage at 38%, which fits into the identified 22-44% range. However, the building
percentage crops the building in the image. In figure 7.24 the building percentage is 28%, but
the size of the building is still too large. In the final image, figure 7.25, the building percentage
is 22%. The results show a 6% decrease in building size, which fits within the 22-44% range
and looks to be proportioned well within the image. The experiments show the various spatial
relationships that occur in an image by changing a single principle parameter in a rendering.
In addition, the experiments show the value of the building to image ratio.
Building Percentage 38%
Figure 7.23. 38% building percentage.

153
Step 8 Leading Lines & Paths
Building on the previous experiments, the contextual surrounding buildings and site
conditions are rendered in order to demonstrate how the lines of the building geometry lead
the viewers attention towards the primary focal point. Furthermore, the paths that lead to the
main entrance serve as leading lines. These leading line and path examples are illustrated in
figure 7.26. They are indicated in red dotted arrows.
Figure 7.26. Building geometry work as leading lines.
Step 9 Framing & Placing Elements
The result of the tests show the placement of the trees to the left of the main
architectural object, thus framing the focus of the viewers attention towards the main focal
point. In addition, the trees to the right side of the image add to the overall framing of the
image. By placing the people near the entrance, the placed elements engage the space and
draw the attention of the viewer to their location. Finally, the tree lined street in the middle-
ground of the image complete the boundary of the framed space in front of the building. This
space, created by the shape of the building, is framed by the placed trees, the surrounding
buildings and the main architectural building, shown in figure 7.27.
Figure 7.27, Framing & Placing Elements in the rendered scene.
154
Figure 7.28, Final architectural rendering.
Step 10 Depth
In the 10th set of experiments several elements were introduced in Photoshop to the
scene to increase the depth of perspective with accurate depth cues, such as the mountain
ranges in the distance and a tweaking of the sky colors. The accuracy of the 3ds Max program
and the input information of the 3d model account for most of the precision of perspective
depth. If the author is constructing an architectural rendering completely derived from the
3ds Max & V-Ray program, using the real world camera simulation, then the precision of the
modeling program will produce the proper depth of perspective. However, the prevailing
method of rendering construction uses the major modeling program such as 3ds Max, Cinema
4D, Maya or Lightwave with either the default rendering system or a plug-in rendering tool
such as V-Ray, Indigo, Maxwell, etc., to rendering the base image, which is then transferred to
Photoshop or After Effects for post production image editing. In this situation, the author of
the image is responsible for accurately representing additionally placed depth cues in order to
accurately represent the depth of perspective. In addition, the mountain range and the
setting sunset create prospect for the viewer to gaze upon, as shown in figure 7.28.
155
Step 1 Image Type
In experiment 2, the image type was once again

set to landscape.
Step 2 Image Ratio
Similar to the first experiment, the image ratio

settings can be defined in the Image Aspect category in
Common Parameters in the Render Setup window. This
experiment was set to an image ratio of 1:2. The image
aspect ratio is shown in the figure 7.30.
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint was determined by the V-Ray

camera position, which was set in the 3d model at eye
level above the ground plane, creating an eye level, EL,
viewpoint from which the architecture is seen. Figure 7.29, Render Setup window.
3DS Max and V-Ray.
Step 4 Focal Point
The focal point of the architectural object is the

1/4
same as the first experiment. However, the location of Image Ratio 1:2 1/3
HL
the viewpoint camera is different. In this experiment the

camera was positioned in the front of the architecture
and slightly offset to the right of the building. This
Figure 7.30, 1:2.4 Image Ratio.
viewpoint position opened the main facade of the
architecture in the rendered scene. In the architecture
the main entrance retains a hierarchical position of
1/4
Image Ratio 1:2
importance that is maintained in the rendered scene, 1/3
HL
even with the new location of the viewpoint camera

position, as seen in figure 7.31.
Figure 7.31, V-Ray camera position.
156
Step 5 Horizon Line
In experiment 2, the 3D Mimesis model was put through the same system of horizon
line adjustment renderings. In figure 7.32, the horizon line is rendered at 50% of the image,
increasing the foreground and decreasing the background. In figure 7.33, the horizon line is
rendered at 20%, which ultimately becomes the chosen horizon line location. In figure 7.34,
the HL is set at 4%, which leaves a tremendous imbalance between the fore and background.
1/4
Image Ratio 1:2
1/3
HL 50% HL
Figure 7.32, 50% horizon line test rendering.
HL 20%
HL 4%
157
In this set of experiments the building is positioned in multiple places across the
image. In figure 7.35, the focal point is aligned with the central ¼ division, but the offset crops
the building. In figure 7.36, the focal point is positioned between the ⅓ & ¼ division line. In
figure 7.37, the most prominent corner of the building and the single column next to the
entrance is aligned with the Rule of Third divisions, showcasing both architectural elements.
1/4
1/3
HL 20%
Figure 7.35, Focal point is aligned w/ central division line.
1/4
1/3
HL 20%
Figure 7.36, Focal point is positioned between ⅓ & ¼ division lines.
1/4
1/3
HL 20%
Figure 7.37, Prominent building edge and column are aligned w/ Rule of Thirds.
158
In this set of experiments the building percentages are altered in order to identify the
best building ratio. In figure 7.38, the building percentage is 60%, which squeezes the
surrounding space and crowds the image. In figure 7.39, the building percentage is 48%,
which still appears crowded, but not overly. In figure 7.40, the building percentage is 25%,
which gives room to the secondary elements and appears appropriate. The final BR was 28%.
Figure 7.38, 60% Building Percentage.

159
In this rendering experiment the lines of the pathway to the entrance lead the viewers
attention towards the main focal point. Furthermore, the curves of the building geometry
draw the viewer into the middle of the architecture where the primary and secondary
entrances to the buildings are located, illustrated in figure 7.41. This experiment highlights the
leading lines of the building geometry and the paths.
Figure 7.41, Lines of the path lead the viewers attention towards focal point.
In this experiment the below result shows the image rendered with materials and
textures that accurately represent the building. In addition, the placement of trees and people
frame the architecture and activate the focal point locations, shown in figure 7.42. The
materials & textures are rendered in V-Ray, but the placement of the trees and people is done
in photoshop. The result of the experiment demonstrate the framing technique. Whether
produced in 3ds Max or added in post production, the technique is fundamental.
Figure 7.42, Placement of elements and building geometry frame the image.
160
Figure 7.43, Final architectural rendering
Step 10 Depth
In the 10th experiment, the image added very little additional depth cues in
photoshop. Ground vegetation was added in the middle-ground regions. Shadows were
added to the placed elements in photoshop. The sky was darkened and lightened in various
locations. The mountain range was added in the background and building images were
placed in the background. The images were scaled to accurately blend into the depth created
by the perspective. The prospect in the image is the final view of the building from the
viewpoint location. The view portrays the building as a destination in the image to gaze upon
and eventual go to, shown in figure 7.43.
161
Step 1 Image Type
The image type in this third set of experiments is

portrait. This image type is used to show a different type
of image that can be captured in this particular building
1/4
type.
1/3
Image Ratio 1:1.5
Step 2 Image Ratio

HL
The image ratio in this third set of experiments

was set to 1:1.5, which is slightly larger than the image
aspect ratio produced from a 35mm camera, but it also is
between the 1:1.3 to 1:1.6 identified image ratio range
for portrait images.
Step 3 Viewpoint Figure 7.44, 1:1.5 Image Ratio.
The viewpoint position is set below eye level.

The V-Ray camera was placed 1.5 meters above the
ground plane and positioned near the entrance pathway.
Step 4 Focal Point
The primary focal point of the image is again set

to main entrance, see figure 7.45. The second side
entrance becomes a secondary focal point along with
the window into the building. The pathway also serves
as a secondary focal point.
Figure 7.45, Primary focal point.
162
Step 5 Horizon Line
In this set of experiments the horizon line is once again positioned at various
percentages of the image. In figure 7.46, the three images shows the progression from a 50%
horizon line, to 16% and finally 8%. These results show the dramatic differences in the image
based on the horizon line location. The 24% horizon line location was ultimately chosen based
on the HL image analysis averages and the clear balance within the image.
HL 50%
HL 16%
HL 8%
Figure 7.46, Series of horizon line experiments. Shows the differences in image composition.
The experiments below, figure 7.47, show the horizontal movement of the focal point
across the image. The left image F.P. aligns with the center division, however, the image cuts
the building. The right image F.P. is offset to the left, creating tension with the edge. The
middle image aligns the primary and secondary F.P. with the Rule of Third.
1/4 1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3 1/3
HL 24% HL 24% HL 24%
Figure 7.47, Focal point location in relationship to Rule of Thirds and ¼ division guides.
163
The building ratio experiments produced multiple

images that showed the difference in image composition
when the building percentage is increased or decreased,
similar to the building ratio results from experiment 1 & 2.
The decision was made to include the final building
percentage, which is set at 33% of the image, see figure 7.48.
This building percentage is the most common, according to
the average case study analysis results and it visually felt the
most balanced compositionally.
Step 8 Leading Lines & Paths Figure 7.48, 33% Building Ratio
The leading line and path results are shown in figure

7.49. The pathway leads to the primary and secondary focal
point. Also, the lines from the building geometry lead the
viewers attention towards the focal points. The author
should be aware of the principle concept of leading lines
and paths when setting up the viewpoint or position of the
camera. Usually, the building and the proposed paths and
landscape will already contain these elements. It is the
authors job to recognize these element and use them to
support the primary focal points of the architecture and the
space that it creates. Figure 7.49, Leading lines & paths.
The framing results are illustrated in figure 7.50. The

building geometry positioned in the image help frame the
primary focal point. Also, the post-production placed trees
frame the left side of the image composition.
Figure 7.50, Framing the focal

point.
164
Step 10 Depth
The composition of the final image shows that the depth cues are accurate, which
show an image that maintains the principles of perspective and the depth of perspective.
Furthermore, the image composition has a clear foreground in the pathway and grass, a strong
middle-ground in the building and its interior space and an atmospheric background in the
cloudy sky. The result is an image that accurately represents the depth of perspective in an
image, shown in figure 7.51.
Figure 7.51, Experiment 3 final architectural rendering.
165
7.6 HOK
The second project used as a test subject in the principle experiments is a conceptual
design submittal for the Xiamen International Center in the financial business district of the
city of Xiamen, China. The conceptual design was produced by the HOK International Inc.,
Shanghai office. Under the authoritative approval of William Paluch, vice president and design
director, the 3d conceptual model of the design proposal was provided for the purposes of
these experiments. The 3d contextual surroundings were then built and added in 3ds Max in
order to place the 3d model in its contextual environment.
The project proposal is a complex organization of commercial, retail, office and

residential space located in two separate towers that emerge from a ground floor podium
comprised of retail, commercial and lobby space. The major tower reaches a height of 333
meters and the total area of the tower is 104,000 square meters. The second tower reaches a
height of 203 meters and the total area is 56,000 square meters. The major aspects of the
second tower program consists of hotel rooms, office space and hotel amenities. The podium
program consists of retail, parking, office and theater, measuring an area of 196,000 square
meters. The site of the project proposal is situated several blocks from the south China sea in
the vibrant and culturally rich financial business district.
The project building type is used in this next set of experiments to compare the results
with the results from the small scale building type of the Mimesis Museum rendering
experiments. The height and tremendous volume of the HOK project building type is a perfect
counterpoint to the small building type of the Mimesis project. Again, the reason for a
comparative study is to verify whether or not the identified principles work independent of
building type. The assumption is that the rendering principles can be applied to any rendering
for any building type. Three different rendered images will test the principles, similar to the
experiments of the Mimesis Museum. Further, the sequence will be tested for each rendered
scene.
In the chapter summary, the rendering experiment results from both projects will
compare the similarities and differences.
166
7.7 HOK Experiment 1
Step 1 Image Type
The image type used in the first set of

experiments is portrait. Based on the vertical height
of the building type, the decision was made to start 1/4 1/4
with a portrait example. 1/3 Image Ratio 1:1.5 1/3
Step 2 Image Ratio

HL
The image ratio for the portrait image is
HL
1:1.5, similar to the image ratio in experiment 3 of
the Mimesis experiments. Figure 7.52 shows a
diagram of the image ratio.
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint or camera was set at 2 meters

above the ground plane. The position of the
viewpoint was placed in the sidewalk near the
storefront commercial space of the lower podium of
the architecture.
Step 4 Focal Point

1/4
The primary focal point of the image is the Image Ratio 1:1.5 1/3
lobby entry to the main tower, positioned below the

awning and the tower, see figure 7.53 The
HL
importance of the point is that it marks the
transition between the public street space outside
and the private space enclosed in the tower.
Figure 7.53, Lobby entrance focal point.
167
Step 5 Horizon Line
In this series of rendering experiments the horizon line is positioned in several

locations in the image in order to identify the ideal position. In the left image from the series
in figure 7.54 the horizon line is set at 43%. In the image the tower is cut and the foreground is
too large. The middle image HL is set at 28%, but still cuts the tower. In the right image the HL
is set at 6%. The tower is included and the foreground is shortened. The final HL is set at 13%.
1/4
Image Ratio 1:1.5 1/3
HL
HL 43%
HL 28%
HL 6%
Figure 7.54, Horizon line experiment results.
In this series of experiments the focal point shifts across the image. The dominant
presence of the tower make it a major element in the image. The final result is the middle
image that aligns the tower with the left Rule of Third division line, shown in figure 7.55.
1/4 1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3 1/3
HL 13% HL 13% HL 13%
Figure 7.55, Focal point alignment experiments with Rule of Third and ¼ divisions.
168
The building ratio experiments produced

multiple variations of building sizes in proportion to
the overall image. The final resulting building
percentage that worked best in relationship to the
image composition is 28%, shown in figure 7.56.
This building ratio is consistent with the identified
building ratio range of 22-44%. The result is a well Building Percentage 28%
proportioned representation of a tremendously
imposing building in relationship with the
contextual surroundings in the composition of the
image.

Figure 7.56, 28% Building Ratio.
The geometry of the building and the lines
that form the paths act as leading lines by leading
the viewers attention to a specific focal point. In a
well designed and constructed 3D model the
leading lines and paths will be present. The author
of the rendering must recognize these fundamental
elements and use them to enhance the primary
focal points in the architectural rendering. The
leading lines and paths of this experiment are
shown in figure 7.57.
Figure 7.57, Leading lines & paths diagram.
169
The final framing results of this experiment

placed trees along the divide between the sidewalk
and the street, shown in figure 7.58 in a dashed
outline. The placement of trees and small
vegetation was achieved in Photoshop. The second
tree frame is created on the left of the image with a
smaller amount of tree. These two elements
formulate the major framing of the primary focal
point, which is the building tower. In addition, the
trees in the planter frame the secondary focal point.
Finally, the geometry from the lower podium
building edge help form a v-shape to further draw
attention to the primary focal point.
Step 10 Depth Figure 7.58, Framing the focal point.
The final image result from the first set of

experiments of the HOK test subject show accuracy
in the depth of perspective. The placed elements
precisely represent proper depth cues such as size
perspective, overlap, shade and shadow.
Furthermore, the composition has a well developed
foreground with human activity and detail. The
middle-ground showcases the main architecture
and the background blends the contextual
surrounding buildings, tree lined streets and sky to
form a subtle backdrop for the primary focal point.
The prospect within the image is the top of the
tower, which acts as a prospective view and a future
destination.
Figure 7.59, HOK Experiment 1 final

rendering.
170
Step 1 Image Type
In experiment 2 of the HOK project the next image type was landscape. The landscape
image type was used in this experiment in order to capture the architecture, human activity
and spatial conditions at street level.
Step 2 Image Ratio
The image ratio was set at 1:2.2, within the

HD theater cinema ratio. This image ratio increases 1/4
1/3
Image Ratio 1:2.2
the horizontal space of the image, which allows the HL
image to describe the surroundings without

decreasing the building percentage below the
building ratio range.
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint was placed below eye level, BEL, and positioned near the main entrance
to the retail shopping area in the podium of the designed tower.
Step 4 Focal Point
The main entrance to the retail shopping center is the identified primary focal point of
this scene. The lobby entrance to the main tower is identified as the secondary focal point.
1/4
1/3
HL
Figure 7.61, Primary focal point illustrated diagram.
171
Step 5 Horizon Line
In this set of experiments the horizon line is rendered in three different locations
within each image. In figure 7.62, the horizon line is set at 50%. The result is an increased
foreground and cropped middle-ground. In figure 7.63, the horizon line is set at 17%. The
lower horizon line increases the presence of the building and decreases the amount of
foreground without diminishing its description. In figure 7.64, the horizon line is set at 10%,
which is within the horizon line range of 10-35%, but in this situation the foreground is cut too
short. The final horizon line location was finally set at 18%, increasing the foreground.
HL 50%
Figure 7.62, 50% Horizon line.
HL 17%
Figure 7.63, 17% horizon line.
HL 10%
Figure 7.64, 10% horizon line.

172
In this set of experiments, the focal point is shifted across the image, similar to the
earlier experiments. In figure 7.65, the focal point is offset to the right of the image, limiting
the description of the main entrance. In figure 7.66, the primary F.P. is aligned with the right ¼
division and the secondary F.P. is aligned with the left Rule of Third guide. In figure 7.67, the
F.P. is positioned between the Rule of Third and ¼ division line. The second example was
chosen as the final position of the focal points in the image. This example demonstrates how
the grid guides can aid in the construction of a rendering.
1/4
1/3
HL 18%
Figure 7.65, Focal point alignment with Rule of Thirds and ¼ division guides.
1/4
1/3
HL 18%
1/4
1/3
HL 18%
173
The final building percentage in this set of experiments is 66%. The average building
percentage range based on the case study analysis is 22-44% for exterior images with the
majority in the 33% category. However, the 66% building percentage category did account for
10% of all the images. Although there is not a significant amount of images with the 66%
building percentage, there are successful cases. This experiment appears well proportioned in
the image composition.
1/4
1/3
HL 18%

The geometry of the building is illustrated in figure 7.69 and indicates the leading lines
that focus the viewers attention towards the main focal points. Further, the main path to the
entrance also leads the viewer to the primary focal point. Finally, the path to the left in the
image leads to the secondary focal point. These leading lines and paths stimulate the
movement of the viewers attention, aiding in the description of the architecture and space.
1/4
1/3
HL 18%
Figure 7.69, Leading lines and paths to focal points.
174
The primary focal point in the image is framed by the geometric form of the entrance
as indicated in figure 7.70, on the right side of the image. The secondary focal point is framed
by the curved shape of the building form and the placed tree line to the left in the
Figure 7.70, Framing the focal points.
Step 10 Depth
The depth of perspective is accurately represented in the rendering. The background

buildings follow the lines of the converging building geometry towards the scenes vanishing
point. The placed people and vegetation are scaled accurately to their position in the image.
The prospect of the scene is the retail shopping space and the lighted depression in the
ground plane. Both areas are prospective places to discover from the viewpoint of the
rendering.
Figure 7.71, HOK experiment 2, final rendering.
175
Step 1 Image Type
The image type used in the third set of HOK

experiments is portrait.
Step 2 Image Ratio

1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3
Image Ratio 1:1.5
The image ratio in this third set of HOK
experiments is set to 1:1.5. Again, this aspect ratio is
HL HL
slightly larger than the image aspect ratio produced
from a 35mm camera, but it also is between the
1:1.3 to 1:1.6 identified image ratio range for portrait
images.
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint is set at eye level, EL and the

camera location is positioned several blocks away in Figure 7.72, 1:1.5 Image Ratio.
model space. The camera is positioned looking at
the main retail shopping entrance and tower of the
proposed architecture.
Step 4 Focal Point

1/4
The ground floor of the main tower is the

1/3
primary focal point in the rendering, shown in figure

7.73. The dominant presence and importance of the
tower requires appropriate attention and in this HL
experiment the primary focal point is the tower and

its ground floor interaction with the public space.
Figure 7.73, Focal point diagram.
176
Step 5 Horizon Line
The three experiments below show three different horizon line locations. The left
rendering in figure 7.74 shows the HL at 50%, the left rendering shows the HL at 20% and the
right rendering shows the HL at 3%. The experiment results clearly show that renderings with
horizon lines placed outside of the 10-35% HL range have diminished overall compositional
quality.
HL 50%
HL 20%
HL 3%
Figure 7.74, Horizon line HOK experiment 3 results.
The series of experiments below, figure 7.75, show three different focal point locations.
The results of the three different locations show that the middle image works best
compositionally. The main tower F.P. is aligned with the central ¼ division guide. Also, the
shopping center entrance and pathway are both aligned with the Rule of Third guidelines.
1/4 1/4 1/4
1/3 1/3 1/3
HL 20% HL 20% HL 20%
Figure 7.75, HOK experiment 3, Rule of Third & ¼ division results.

177
The building percentage is 15%, which is

smaller than the average results, shown in figure
7.76. While there are cases that these smaller
building percentages work, it could be argued that a
7% increase in the size of the building to image ratio
might produce a better image. Looking back on the
experiment, it should of been further investigated.
However, it wasn’t and this was the decided building
percentage, which still works.
The geometry of the building and the lines

that form the paths act as leading lines by leading
the viewers attention to a specific focal point. The
leading lines and paths of this experiment are 1/4
shown in figure 7.77.

1/3
HL 20%
Figure 7.77, Leading lines and paths.
178
The final framing results of this experiment

placed trees along the sidewalk on the left side of
the image, shown in figure 7.78 in a dashed outline.
The placement of trees and small vegetation was
achieved in Photoshop. The second tree frame is
created on the right side of the image with a smaller
tree overhang. These two elements and the smaller
building tower on the right of the image formulate
the major framing of the primary focal point, which
is the building tower.
Figure 7.78, Framing the focal point.

Step 10 Depth
The final image result, from the third set of

experiments of the HOK test subject, show accuracy
in the depth of perspective. The placed elements
precisely represent proper depth cues such as size
perspective, overlap, shade and shadow.
Furthermore, the composition has a well developed
foreground with human activity and detail. The
middle-ground showcases the main architecture
and the background blends the contextual
surrounding buildings, tree lined streets and sky to
form a subtle backdrop for the primary focal point.
The prospect within the image is the again the
tower, which acts as a prospective view and a future
destination.
Figure 7.79, HOK Experiment 3, final image.
179
7.10 Summary
In this chapter, two different building types were used in experiments that tested the
identified fundamental principles from the case study research of the previous chapters. The
different building types were used to compare the principle experiment results of a low lying
building with the results of a tall skyscraper building, in order to test if the principles work
regardless of building type. Each individual principle was tested in a series of comparative
renderings that produced multiple outcomes by changing a single variable setting for that
principle. The experiments from both projects proved that the principles and there
parameters, identified by the case study research, through analysis and synthesis, work
independent of building type. Based on the experiment results and the case study analysis,
the conclusion is drawn that the principles can be applied to any building type.
In addition, through the testing of each individual principle, a sequential order of

application was identified. This step-by-step sequence provided a methodology from which to
construct an architectural rendering.
In the next chapter, the fundamental principles and the sequence of application are
applied to two different buildings. For each building project a set of final architectural
renderings were produced using the fundamental rendering principles. A thorough
explanation is given to a final image from each project, describing the principle and how it is
implemented.
180
Chapter 8 I Final Projects
8.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, two separate building types were put through a series of
experiments, which tested each individual principle. The experiments produced multiple
rendering variations of a single principle in application. The results show the effectiveness of the
principles and the ability to improve the overall rendering quality when applied. In addition, a
sequential order of application was identified in the construction of an architectural rendering.
This sequence established a method of application when starting the rendering process, which
starts with a single fundamental principle and follows a step-by-step application of the remaining
principles. The result produced a sound, fundamental and high quality rendering. In this chapter,
two different building types are used to produce final sets of renderings that follow the principles
and the sequence. The first project is the Nanjing Museum, a medium scale building designed by
Steven Holl. The building is a significant work of Steven Holl, whose contributions to the field of
architecture have culminated in the Pritzker award and a place in architectural history. The second
project is the Hale Ka’ako’a (coral house), design by Stephen Grant Green. The project is an unbuilt
work and its place in history is yet to be determined. However, it is used in this final chapter to
demonstrate the rendering principles when applied to a conceptual design idea.
8.2 Nanjing Museum
The Nanjing Museum of Art designed by Steven Holl Architects is located in the hills of
Nanjing, China. The museum is a structure comprised of galleries, a tea room, a bookstore and the
curator’s residence. The architect describes the design as a museum that “explores the shifting
viewpoints, layers of space, expanses of mist and water, which characterize the deep alternating
spatial mysteries of the composition of Chinese painting. The straight passages on the ground
level gradually turn into the winding passage of the figure above. The upper gallery, suspended
high in the air, unwraps in a clockwise turning sequence and culminates at “in-position” viewing of
the city of Nanjing in the distance. This visual axis creates a linkage back to the great Ming Dynasty
capital city.” An exterior wall surrounds the museum in an unparalleled manner, creating a modern
geometric fence which complements the main structure. A place for dreams and art, the Nanjing
Museum of Art is a magnificent structure placed in a carefully chosen environmental context.”1
1 freshome.com, magnificent-structure-for-art-the-nanjing-museum-of-art, 2011.
181
8.3 Nanjing Project Scene 1
Step 1 Image Type
Based on the experiments in chapter 7, the first step in the construction of an architectural
rendering is to establish the image type. In this first rendering, the landscape image type is used.
This is the most commonly used image type in architectural renderings.
Step 2 Image Ratio
Based on the average results of the case study analysis, the most commonly used image
ratio range for landscape images is between 1:1.6 to 1:2. In this first rendering, the image ratio is
set to 1:1.77, which is the image aspect ratio in most HD computer screens and HD televisions.
Image Ratio 1:1.77
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint in this first rendering is set to eye level and the camera position is located
near the main entry pathway, looking towards the architecture.
Figure 8.02, Viewpoint location.

182
Figure 8.03, Primary and secondary focal points.
Step 4 Focal Point
In this first rendering the cantilevered gallery space of the museum is identified as the
primary focal point, illustrated in figure 8.03. From the viewpoint location, the organizational
hierarchy of the architecture informs this decision. The elevated museum space is a destination in
the architecture where the user of the museum can view out across the landscape from an
elevated tower. This makes the space a major feature in the architecture, which makes the view of
the space the primary focal point in the image. Further, the view into the space reinforces this
decision. Once the primary focal point is identified, secondary focal points are revealed in the
hierarchy of the image. The next important focal point is the end of the entrance path into the
museum, indicated in figure 8.03. In addition, this secondary focal point extends into the view of
the mountains in the horizon, above the end of the entrance path. Additional secondary focal
points are identified in the bend of the road, the foreground flowers and the mountains to the
right of the primary focal point. These focal points serve as supporting points of interest that are
intended to move the attention of the viewer across the image, but aren’t dominant enough to
detract from the primary focal point of interest. Understanding the architecture and the story the
representation is intending to tell, will inform the author of the rendered scene what the primary
and secondary focal points are.
183
HL 20%
Figure 8.04, 20% Horizon line.
Step 5 Horizon Line
The horizon line in the first rendering is set to 20%, shown in figure 8.04. For this type of
eye level viewpoint rendering, this horizon line is within the identified case study analysis range,
10-35%. Based on the case study research, the highest concentration of eye level viewpoint
renderings occurred between 20-25%, which informed the location of the horizon line in this first
rendering. Although the horizon line is not visible, the visual depth of perspective cues from the
architecture and pathways aid in the viewers understanding of its presence. With the low
placement of the horizon line the primary architectural focal point is lowered in the image. By
lowering the architecture, the space around the architecture, in this case the sky, help frame the
focal point and give it room in the image. In addition, by setting a low horizon line the subtle
presence of the sky is increased and the viewer attention in the image is raised upwards towards
the sky.
184
1/4
1/3
Figure 8.05, Rule of Thirds and ¼ division guides.
Step 6 Rule of Thirds & ¼ Division
In this first rendering the Rule of Third guidelines were used to compositionally position
certain architectural aspects that coincided with the primary and secondary focal points in the
architectural rendering. As seen in figure 8.05, the primary focal point of the image is aligned with
the right Rule of Third vertical line. In aligning the corner of the cantilevered space, the highest
point of the architecture is aligned with the Rule of third power point. As a principle guide there
are many conditions that can be aligned with the Rule of Third guidelines. In this case, the
decision was made to use the prominent corner of the architecture. The center of the cantilevered
viewing window could of been placed at the upper right power point, but it was not. In this case,
the immediate area around the power point benefit from the alignment and therefore viewing
window is also highlighted. The secondary focal point is aligned with the left Rule of Third vertical
line. In addition, the lower left Rule of Third power point is located at the v-shape of the horizon
mountain range. This power point increases the interest in the end of the entrance path and the
view of the mountain horizon. The end result is a dynamic image that places its two main focal
points in alignment with the upper right and lower left Rule of Third power points.
185
22% Building Percentage
Figure 8.06, 22% Building Ratio Diagram.
Based on the average building ratio results from the case study analysis, this first rendering
set the building percentage to 22%, shown in figure 8.06. The building percentage to overall
image ratio of 22% falls within the average range of 22-44%. The decision to make the building
size 22% of the image was guided by the average range and by certain principles that preceded
this step, such as the Rule of Third & ¼ division principle. By making the building ratio 22% the
remaining area of the image composition is left open to contextual development. In this case, the
mountainous contextual setting is able to be articulated. In the image the atmosphere of the site
and place is expressed through images of the vast underdeveloped mountains that surround the
site of the architecture. This is achieved because of the limit that was set on the size of the
architecture in the architectural rendering.
The building ratio principle is a result of averages and serves as a guide or framework from
which to work within. While there are cases of building ratios that successfully exceed the 22-44%
range, there is a higher percentage of successful images that work within the building ratio range.
This architectural rendering works within the 22-44% range and results in a successful image.
186
Figure 8.07, Leading Lines and Paths Diagram.
As described in chapter 6, leading lines and paths are supportive elements that subtly
engage the viewers attention and direct it toward the primary and secondary focal points of
interest in the image composition. Typically, the geometry of the 3d model design will account for
the leading lines in the composition. Also, the designed pathways of the architectural design will
be present when constructing an architectural rendering. In the setting up of the viewpoint and
identification of the focal point the geometry of the building will inform the author of potential
leading lines. In figure 8.07, the pathway directly in front of the viewpoint operates as a path, both
for the design of the architecture and for the leading of viewer focus. The lines of the main
pedestrian pathway, the lines from the road and the lines from the 3d building geometry lead the
attention of the viewer toward the secondary focal point, as illustrated in figure 8.07. Also, the
geometry of the cantilevered structure lead up toward the primary focal point as illustrated in the
upper right of the image. The leading lines in this composition are very subtle and not as
prominent as the main pedestrian pathway, but they are present and do serve a purpose as a
fundamental rendering principle.
187
F.P.
F.P.
Figure 8.08, Framing & Placement of Elements Diagram.
Step 9 Framing & Placement of Elements
As earlier described in chapter 6, framing is a visual arts technique used in the composition
of images that directs the focus of the viewers attention to the primary focal point in the image. In
the first Nanjing Museum of Arts rendering there are very few placed elements that help frame the
focal points. The subtle frames that do exist in this rendering composition are illustrated in figure
8.08. The primary focal point uses the actual full height viewing window frame of the building
geometry to frame the cantilevered viewing window. This particular case requires no additional
placed elements to enhance the primary focal point. Further, the dark clouds also frame the
cantilevered architecture. The secondary focal point is slightly framed by the building edge and
the middle-ground tree line as illustrated in the left of the rendering in figure 8.08.
In summary, the framing technique in this rendering is very subtle and it could be argued
that additional elements could be added to accentuate the focal points and improve the quality of
the rendering.
188
Figure 8.09, Nanjing scene 1, final rendering, produced by author.
Step 10 Depth
In this first Nanjing rendering the depth of the image is accurately represented with depth
cues and perspective geometry that formulate the depth of perspective found in the image,
shown in figure 8.09. First, the perspective geometry of the architecture is precisely represented,
having converging lines that meet at the horizon line. The precision of the 3d modeling program
and 3d camera will accurately represent the 3d geometry in perspective. It is important that the
camera settings simulate real world camera parameters. The default camera in all major 3d
modeling and animation programs are initially set to a real world camera setting. If the camera
settings are changed, it is important to understanding the extents of the manipulation, which can
all be learned through the program training manuals and tutorials. In this rendering there is no
camera distortion in the perspective geometry. Also, the placed depth cues such as the people,
mountains, grass, flowers and trees are all scaled to proportion within their perspective position in
space. The overall composition presents a balanced fore to back ground. In the foreground, the
pathway and flowery field are detailed and act as points of interest. The middle-ground
architecture adds to the composition and the silhouette background mountain range provides
depth to the image. The cantilevered tea house acts as the prospect in the image, which is seen as
the primary prospective destination, a place that the viewer wants to go to. In summary, the
image possesses the qualities of depth.
189
In the second Nanjing rendering, two images below showcase the principles that
construct the composition of the final image. In figure 8.10, the following principles are
diagramed. First, it is a landscape image. The image ratio is 1:1.77. The viewpoint is eye level. The
focal points are the corner window in the architecture and the horizon as indicated. The horizon
line is 23%. The focal points are aligned with the Rule of Thirds and central ¼ division guides. The
building ratio is 28%. The lines of the geometry lead towards the focal points. The building and
placed trees frame the focal points and the depth caused by the depth of perspective cues is
accurately represented. The overall image quality of the architectural rendering is high and the
composition is balanced and interesting, see figure 8.11. The representation shows the harmony
of the building in its contextual site settings.
1/4
1/3
HL 23%
Figure 8.10, Nanjing scene 2, Principles Diagram.
Figure 8.11, Nanjing scene 2, final rendering, produced by author.
190
Step 1 Image Type
In the third Nanjing rendering, the two

1/4
images to the right showcase the principles that
1/3
construct the composition of the final image. In
figure 8.12, the following principles are
diagramed. First, it is a portrait image. The
image ratio is 1:1.5. The viewpoint is below eye
level. The primary focal point is the corner
window in the architecture and secondary focal
point is the sun setting behind the mountain HL 27%
horizon as indicated. The horizon line is 27%.
The primary focal point is aligned with the
upper right Rule of Thirds power point, as
indicated. The building ratio is 22%. The lines of
the geometry, shown by the arrows, lead the Figure 8.12, Nanjing scene 3, principles diagram.
viewers attention towards the focal points. The
building frame the secondary focal points of the
mountain ranges that flank each side of the
building and the depth caused by the depth of
perspective cues is accurately represented. The
overall image quality of the architectural
rendering is high and the composition is
balanced and interesting, see figure 8.13. The
representation shows the elegant simplicity of
the design in the landscape.
Figure 8.13, Nanjing scene 3, final rendering.
191
8.6 Hale Ko’ako’a (Coral House)
The Pilara House is a conceptual design for a residential home on the Kohala coastline of
the Big Island, Hawai’i, designed by Stephen Green Architecture. The site is situated on the
waterfront of the Hualalai lava flow of 1801-02. It is comprised of sharp dark a’a, lava rock. The
northeast corner of the site connects to a white coral beach and in the transitional space that links
the two, are pockets of white coral in the black a’a rock. The vision of the site is to restore the site
to its original pre-developed condition and create a design that utilizes the logic and simplicity
that the Hawaiian people have used for centuries. The architecture is “conceived as a series of
individual living areas connected either physically of symbolically as a metaphor of the adjacent
coral reef, expressed as contrasting objects nestled in the black lava. The architecture is informed
by several elements such as cardinal and major view relationships, program hierarchy, wind
patterns, site lines and day lighting,” according to Stephen Green. The main entry frames a direct
view of the dramatic Kohala Coast and the Master Hale, or main dwelling area , has a sweeping
view of the Island of Maui on the horizon to the Kohala Coast. The dwelling structures are made of
white coral and represent extrapolations of the white coral pockets found along the coast that
continue into the site and become the architecture.
Figure 8.14, Coral House site plan. Courtesy Stephen Green Architecture. April, 2012.
192
8.7 Hale Ko’ako’a (Coral House) Scene 1
Step 1 Image Type
Based on the experiments in chapter 7 the first step in the construction of an architectural
rendering is to establish the image type. In this first rendering of the Pilara House, the landscape
image type is used. This, again, is the most commonly used image type in renderings.
Step 2 Image Ratio
Based on the average results of the case study analysis, the most commonly used image
ratio range for landscape images is between 1:1.6 to 1:2. In this first rendering, the image ratio is
set to 1:1.77, which is the image aspect ratio in most HD computer screens and HD televisions.
Image Ratio 1:1.77
Step 3 Viewpoint
The viewpoint in this first Coral House rendering is set to below eye level. The camera
position is set between the two main separate living areas. The view is aimed at the main dwelling
structure and is directed towards the entrance of the house.
Figure 8.16, Below eye level viewpoint.
193
Figure 8.17, Primary and secondary focal point diagram.
Step 4 Focal Point
In this first Coral House rendering the entrance to the main architectural dwelling is
identified as the primary focal point, illustrated in figure 8.17. From the viewpoint location, the
organizational hierarchy of the architecture informs this decision, which means the entry to the
structure is more important than the exterior wall and is treated as such. In the scene the
supporting pathway to the entry door help signify the importance of the primary focal point.
Furthermore, the entry frames a view thru the building, which causes further interest in the point.
The material change at the entry and color change further increase the interest of the point. The
secondary focal point in the scene is the view of the island at the horizon. This focal point serves
as a counterpoint to the primary. It is a subtle point of interest that deserves the attention of its
supporting role. Additional, tertiary focal points in the scene are the coconut trees, the Hala tree,
distant pools and the water feature along the pathway between the two dwelling structures.
These points act as supporting points of interest and add to the rich composition of elements.
Understanding the architecture and the story the representation is intending to tell will inform the
author of the rendered scene what the primary and secondary focal points are. Once these focal
points are recognized and establish, the foundational hierarchy of the scene is set.
194
HL 35%
Figure 8.18, 35% Horizon line diagram.
Step 5 Horizon Line
The horizon line in the first Coral House rendering is set to 35%, shown in figure 8.18. For
this type of below eye level viewpoint rendering, this horizon line is within the identified case
study analysis range, 10-35%. It could be argued that the horizon line location could of been
lowered to improve the quality. However, the low height of the architecture gives additional room
to the sky in the upper half of the image, which allowed the horizon line to be positioned higher
than the average. In this image, the horizon line is clearly visible in the setting distance, which
carries thru the material lines of the architecture, strengthening the horizon line presence. In
addition, by placing the horizon line on the high side of the identified range, the front of the
image is given more space to describe the interesting foreground conditions. These conditions are
the pathway, the water feature, landscape pools, the grass and the lava rock landscape, which
warrant the opportunity for further representational description. Finally, the low placement of the
architecture in the image give the sky the majority of the image. While compositionally it is the
majority of the scene, its presence is subtle, yet important.
195
1/4
1/3
Figure 8.19, Rule of Thirds & ¼ division guide diagram.
Step 6 Rule of Thirds & ¼ Division
In this first Coral House rendering the Rule of Third & ¼ division guidelines were used to
compositionally position certain architectural aspects that coincided with the primary and
secondary focal points in the architectural rendering. As seen in figure 8.19, the primary focal
point is aligned with the right ¼ division guideline and the secondary focal point is aligned with
the left Rule of Third lower power point. Once again, as a principle guide there are many
conditions that can be aligned with the Rule of Third or ¼ division guidelines. In this case, the
decision was made to use the main entry focal point and the island in the horizon. By aligning the
focal points in these locations the space of the image and movement thru it is increased. What
results, is an image with two areas of interest that shift the attention of the viewer and, in the
process, describe the spatial conditions created by the architecture.
196
22% Building Percentage
Figure 8.20, 22% Building ratio diagram.
Based on the average building ratio results from the case study analysis, this first Coral
House rendering set the building percentage to 22%, shown in figure 8.20. The building
percentage to overall image ratio of 22% falls within the average range of 22-44%. The decision to
make the building size 22% of the image was guided by the average range and by certain
principles that preceded this step, such as the Rule of Third & ¼ division principle. By limiting the
building ratio to 22% of the image, the area between the architecture is able to be articulated. In
this space between the buildings a story is told. The area is protected as seen from the viewpoint
and creates a viewing lookout platform from which to gaze from. Also, the additional space for the
secondary points of interest help describe the pools and pockets of sand in the front of the house.
All of these contextual site descriptions are made possible by the reduced size of the architecture
to image ratio.
Once again, the building ratio principle is a result of averages and serves as a guide or
framework from which to work within. While there are cases of building ratios that successfully
exceed the 22-44% range, there is a higher percentage of successful images that work within the
building ratio range. This architectural rendering works within the 22-44% range and results in a
successful image.
197
Figure 8.21, Leading lines & paths diagram.
As earlier described, leading lines and paths are supportive elements that subtly engage
the viewers attention and direct it toward the primary and secondary focal points of interest in the
image composition. Typically, the geometry of the 3d model design will account for the leading
lines in the composition. Also, the designed pathways of the architectural design will be present
when constructing an architectural rendering. In the setting up of the viewpoint and
identification of the focal point, the geometry of the building will inform the author of potential
leading lines. In figure 8.21, the pathway to the main entry from the master bedroom dwelling
and the pathway from the yard act as paths to the primary focal point. In addition, the geometric
lines of the main path and water feature lead the viewers focus to the primary focal point. The
geometry of the two buildings also focus the viewers attention towards the secondary focal point.
This is achieved by linear perspective lines that direct the viewers attention toward the horizon
vanishing point. The result is two separate focuses that both have the support of strong leading
lines and paths. In this rendering the leading lines and paths are strong compositional elements
and support their value as a fundamental rendering principle.
198
F.P. F.P.
Figure 8.22, Framing & placement of elements diagram.
Step 9 Framing & Placement of Elements
Once again, as earlier described, framing is a visual arts technique used in the composition
of images that directs the focus of the viewers attention to the primary focal point in the image.
The elements of the images used to frame the focal point can be any of the placed secondary
elements. In this first Coral House rendering the two major framing elements are the Hala tree, to
the right of the image, and the wall of the dwelling structure, to the left of the image, illustrated in
figure 8.22. Together, these two elements frame the entire rendered scene. In addition, the
subtractive form of the entry structure frames the primary focal point. The secondary focal point is
framed by the building edges of both dwelling structures. Furthermore, the secondary focal point
is framed by the placed trees and reinforced by the multiple framing layers of trees that extend
back through the depth of perspective. In summary, the framing technique in this rendering is
bold, clear and effective.
199
Figure 8.23, Coral House scene 1, final rendering, produced by author.
Step 10 Depth
In this first Coral House rendering the depth of the image is accurately represented with
depth cues and perspective geometry that formulate the depth of perspective found in the image,
shown in figure 8.23. First, the perspective geometry of the architecture is precisely represented,
having converging lines that meet to the left horizon line. The precision of the 3d modeling
program and 3d camera accurately represents the 3d geometry in perspective. In this rendering
there is no camera distortion in the perspective geometry. Also, the placed depth cues such as the
trees and background island are all scaled to proportion within their perspective position in space.
The overall composition presents a balanced fore to back ground. In the foreground, the pathway,
water feature, grass and lava rock are detailed and act as close points of interest. The main
architectural focal point is positioned in the middle-ground and the pools and pockets of sand
further add to the middle-ground compositional elements. The background is composed of the
ocean, the island on the horizon and the clouded sky. All these elements add layers to the depth
of perspective. In addition, the foreground water feature, middle-ground pools and background
ocean are common elements that form a link between all three compositional regions of the
image. The featured architecture and the entrance into it, acts as the primary prospect, which is
seen as a prospective destination, a place that the viewer wants to go to. The island on the
horizon also acts as an element of prospect. In summary, the image possesses the qualities of
depth that add to the overall rendering quality.
200
In the second rendering, two images below showcase the principles that construct the
composition of the final image. In figure 8.24, the following principles are diagramed. First, it is an
interior landscape image. The image ratio is 1:2.2. The viewpoint is eye level. The focal points are
the island and coastline at the horizon. The horizon line is 44%, within the 30-50% interior HL
range . The primary focal points are aligned with the right and left ¼ division guides, as indicated.
The path lines lead towards the focal points. The first leading line goes from the viewpoint, to the
couches, to the seated area and finally to the island on the horizon. The second leading path goes
from the viewpoint, to the art and then to the coastline horizon. The building and the palm trees
frames the horizon focal points and the depth caused by the depth of perspective cues is
accurately represented in the furniture, vegetation and geometry. The overall image quality of the
architectural rendering is high and the composition is balanced and interesting, see figure 8.25.
The rendering captures the open space of the design and the prospective views from the space.
1/4
1/3
HL 44%
Figure 8.24, Coral House scene 2, principles diagram.
201
In the third rendering, two images below showcase the principles that construct the
composition of the final image. In figure 8.26, the following principles are diagramed. First, it is a
landscape image. The image ratio is 1:2.2. The viewpoint is below eye level. The primary focal
point is the bedroom viewing window of the architecture and the secondary focal point is the
metal landscape sculpture, indicated with dots and circles. The horizon line is 28%. The focal
points are aligned with the Rule of Thirds guide. The building ratio is 22%. The lines of the
geometry lead towards the focal points, as indicated. The building and placed trees frame the
focal points. Finally, the depth caused by the depth of perspective cues is accurately represented.
The movement from the foreground plunge pool to the background mountain range is dynamic
and interesting. The overall image quality of the architectural rendering is high, see figure 8.27.
The representation shows a rich, complex and balanced architectural representation.
1/4
1/3
HL 28%
202
In the fourth rendering, two images below showcase the principles that construct the
composition of the final image. In figure 8.28, the following principles are diagramed. First, it is a
landscape image. The image ratio is 1:2. The viewpoint is eye level. The focal points are the
viewing window of the living area, bedroom area and the passage tunnel in the architecture, as
indicated. The horizon line is 26%. The focal points are aligned with the right Rule of Third
division, central ¼ division and left division guides. The building ratio is 18%. The lines of the
geometry lead towards the central focal point. The building and placed trees frame the central
focal points and the depth caused by the depth of perspective cues is accurately represented. The
overall image quality is high and the composition is balanced and interesting, see figure 8.29. The
final rendered image has a well balanced composition from the sand covered foreground to the
architecture of the middle-ground and thru to the background vegetation and mountain range.
1/4
1/3
HL 26%
203
8.11 Summary
In this chapter, the Nanjing Museum of Art, designed by Steven Holl and the Hale Ko’ako’a
(Coral House), designed by Stephen Grant Green, were modeled in 3ds Max, rendered with V-Ray
and post-produced in Photoshop, producing two sets of architectural renderings. The
fundamental principles, identified in the case study research, were implemented in the
construction of these renderings. A final image from each project explained each fundamental
principle in detail. The additional final renderings of each project briefly described the principles
in use through an illustrated diagram.
The final image results demonstrate the effective implementation of the fundamental
principles in the construction of an architectural rendering. The quality of the final renderings on a
fundamental level were of high quality. The conclusion is drawn that the fundamental principles,
established through the case study analysis research, work in improving the compositional
framework and overall quality of an architectural rendering.
The next chapter will discuss the overall impact and contributions of this research,
improvement areas in the research, continued development of principles and possible future
research in the area of digital, architectural rendering representation.
204
Chapter 9 I Research Conclusions
This chapter introduces the contribution of this research and reviews the major
aspects of the research methodology, which include the system of case study analysis,
synthesis of the fundamental rendering principles, principle experiments, sequential
framework and practical application. In addition, research issues are discussed and future
research is suggested. Finally, a summary of the complete body of research is presented.
9.1 Research Review
This research investigation started with a simple question. Is there a fundamental set
of principles that are consistently present in high quality architectural renderings? And if so,
can the principles be applied to other architectural renderings to improve the overall quality of
the architectural rendering representation? Through this research investigation, several
fundamental principles were identified and tested. Resulting in a set of fundamental
rendering principles and a method of application. The following sub-sections will review and
discuss the major issues and successes of the three categories that comprise this research
investigation.
9.1.1 Case Study Review
The first category of this research investigation examined over 2000 of the most
admired and established architectural renderings and architectural photographs in
architecture. The case studies were broken into three major categories of architectural images,
which were contemporary renderings, historical renderings and architectural photography.
These images were then analyzed through a system of data collection that recorded
fundamental aspects of each rendering and photograph, using an image overlay comprised of
a ⅓ & ¼ division grids. In each major category of images, groups of images were analyzed
from each industry leading rendering firm. The information recorded from each group was
then analyzed and the results were put into statistical charts. This recorded information was
then averaged with the analysis results from other groups within the major category. The
resulting information provided key insight into the similarities and differences of each
205
architectural rendering and revealed fundamental principles shared between the case study
rendered images. In this method of case study research two key issues were identified later in
synthesis of the research that could be applied to the case study analysis research, which
would improve the accuracy of the results.
First, the images for each group within the major categories could be further
separated into interior and exterior renderings. It was discovered that certain principle
aspects of exterior renderings were consistently different from interior renderings. For
example, the eye level horizon line location for exterior renderings consistently had a lower
position than eye level interior renderings, this resulted in a higher average range for the
horizon line position, which is 10-35%. However, in the investigation it was discovered that
exterior renderings consistently had a horizon line between 10-25% and interior renderings
had a horizon line between 30-50%. The disparity between these two results produced a
higher average range. By further separating the images into interior groups and exterior
groups, the horizon line range will be more accurately identified. Since, 80% of the images
analyzed were exterior, the impact of the interior results on the overall horizon line average
was minimal, but could be improved.
Second, when analyzing the building percentage ratios an anomaly was identified,
which showed that images with building percentages outside the average of 22-44% tended
to be concentrated in 66% ratio. The assumption can be made that there is an inverse
relationship with the 33% ratio, which the majority of images have. The second assumption is
that images that have a 66% building ratio typically have a viewpoint location that is close to
the building and in the image the building is cut by the image extents. Rarely is the building
shown as a complete object in the image. Further investigations into the anomaly could help
identify the reasons for this occurrence.
In summary, the precision of case study analysis could be further broken into sub
categories to further improve the accuracy of the analysis results. However, the information
received through the case study analysis in this research investigation did prove to recognize
major similarities and differences in the images that were studied. The resulting case study
analysis averages were then synthesized into a set of fundamental principles, which will be
reviewed in the following section.
206
9.1.2 Synthesis of Principles Review
The second category of this research investigation took the case study analysis
averages from the contemporary, historical and photographic categories and, based on the
similarities, synthesized the information into a set of fundamental principles. The resulting
principles formulate the fundamental framework in the construction of an architectural
rendering. In this section of research, each individual principle was clearly articulated with
explanations and examples. Based on the case study analysis, each identified principle has a
parameter framework or ideal setting, which serves as a guideline when applying each
principle during the construction of an architectural rendering.
In summary, the principles derived through synthesis are sound and based on the
research results of the highest quality images in architecture, both past and present.
9.1.3 Experimentation Review
The third category of this research investigation took the identified fundamental
principle of rendering and tested each individual principle on two separate building types, in
order to establish if the principles were dependent on a particular building type. Through the
experiment investigation, it was concluded that the principles work independent of building
type. This was achieved by rendering a series of images for each principle, which adjusted the
principle setting for each separate rendering. The results showed that the identified principle
parameters produced higher quality image results in comparison to the rendered images that
were set outside of the principle parameters. In the process of testing the principles, a
sequential order of application was identified. The resulting sequential order provides a step-
by-step system or method of principle application in the construction of an architectural
rendering. The resulting principles and method of application were then implemented in the
final renderings of two projects. Each project provided a detailed description of the principles
in a single final image. In addition, brief descriptions of additional final renderings were
included. In summary, the experimentation phase of the research investigation proved the
principles found in the case study analysis and identified a method of application for
constructing architectural renderings.
207
9.2 Research Contributions
The two major contributions of this research investigation is the identification of the
fundamental principles of an architectural rendering and the method of application for
constructing architectural renderings. These two contributions have impact on both
architectural education and the professional practice of architecture based on the increasing
use of digital technology, such as CAD programs, to represent architectural designs through
digitally produced architectural perspective renderings. This research contribution impacts
the following areas in architecture.
9.2.1 Architectural Education
Over the past 10 years, architectural education has seen an exponential growth in the
use of the computer aided design. Major computer programs such as AutoCAD, Sketchup, 3ds
Max, Maya, Rhionceros3D, Revit, ArchiCAD and Cinema4D are used to produce schematic
plans, sections and elevations. In addition, these programs are used to produce two-
dimensional architectural renderings that accurately represent and describe the design
concepts of novice and experienced architecture students. These images, as earlier described,
are produced with greater frequency as the growing number of architectural students are
introduced to CAD programs as a tool for design. While there is growth in the number of users
and an increase in the prevalence of the rendered image the education of the student is
behind, which results in a plethora of uninformed images. What happens is this, students start
their architectural education and take introductory courses in CAD, which give them a basic
understanding of several CAD programs, such as AutoCAD, 3ds Max and Rhinoceros3D. In the
course of the architectural program, student will take one or two additional CAD courses,
which bring their user experience up to intermediate levels. Typically, architectural students
CAD education stops there. In this process, there is little to no instruction given to the
development of the digitally produced perspective rendering. However, students continue to
use CAD programs to represent their architectural ideas through digitally produced
perspective renderings. The result is a tremendous body of CAD users producing architectural
renderings that are not founded in sound principles and end up suffering in overall image
quality. With the contributions of this research investigation, students of architecture and
users of CAD programs, both new and experienced, will have a sound framework to structure
208
their digitally produced perspective renderings, based in research, which will improve the
overall quality of their architectural renderings.
9.2.2 Professional Practice
The current state of the architectural profession relies on the outsourcing of its visual
images. This practice is common among architectural practices that can afford the service. As
shown in the case studies, the body of work produced by these specialist rendering firms is of
the highest quality. The contributions of this research impact the profession of architecture in
these three areas, reduced outsourced dependency, reduced costs and improved design
communication.
First, the major issue with outsourced visual renderings is the turnaround time, which
is simply the time it takes for a 3d model, from the architect, to be sent to a visualization
specialist, rendered and sent back. In this process of image development, there are numerous
back and forth communications that discuss changes, till a final image is decided upon. In
many of sought after visualization firms, there is an increase wait based on their time
constraints due to the demand of their services. With this research, there is potential for
reducing the dependency on outsourced images and in the process, reducing the turnaround
time or time it takes to finalize and image.
Second, by eliminating the dependency on outsourced images, potential costs are

reduced. With the increases in technological innovation and CAD education, the ease and
quickness of producing a high quality rendering is increasing. Eventually, these high quality
architectural renderings will be easier to produce.
Third, the fundamental rendering principles identified in this research has the
potential to improve the images produced directly in an architectural office. Resulting in
improve design communication between architects as they move through the design process
and improved communication with clients by presenting their architectural designs through
architectural perspective renderings.
In summary, the contributions of this research investigation impact the professional

practice by improving the ability to produce higher quality architectural renderings, in office.
209
9.3 Future Research
The primary contributions of this research investigation is the identification of the

fundamental principles in an architectural rendering. These principle provide a logical
framework and foundational guideline to improve the quality of a digitally produced
architectural rendering and account for the basic elements of a rendering. With the
fundamental principles, the composition of a rendering is brought to a certain level of quality.
In building on this research, there are two potential future research investigations into digitally
produced architectural rendering representation. They include, stylization in architectural
renderings and the measuring and quantifying of compositional rendering elements.
9.3.1 Stylization in Architectural Rendering
Architectural renderings are powerful representations of the Architects design ideas.

As there are many styles in architecture, there are also many styles in architectural rendering,
as seen in this body of research. While high quality renderings have fundamental
characteristics, such as identified, they also have characteristics that separate them from
others. This difference can be seen in the following examples, figure 9.01 & 9.02. These two
images possess similar fundamental principles, but the stylization of the renderings are
completely different. The atmosphere and moods of the two images evoke different
emotional responses and it is clear that there is an emotional intent by each author designed
to move the viewer in a certain direction. Building on the fundamental principles of
architectural rendering, future rendering research can be made into the development of style
in renderings.
Figure 9.01, MIR Rendering, 2012. Figure 9.02, Luxigon Rendering, 2011.
210
Figure 9.03, Labtop Rendering, version 1, 2010. Figure 9.04, Labtop Rendering, version 2. 2010.
With the fundamental principles, the composition of a rendering is brought to a certain level
of quality. From this point, a rendering can be further developed, stylistically, in many
different directions. This is best illustrated in the following figures 9.03 and 9.04, which shows
how an image with the same fundamental structure can be stylistically altered. In the next
example, the Coral house final rendering is shown in two different styles, figure 9.04 and 9.05.
While maintaining the fundamental principles, certain compositional characteristics are
altered to show how a rendering can change stylistically. These example show the potential of
future research into “stylization in rendering”.
Figure 9.05, Coral House scene 1 version 1, post Figure 9.06, Coral House scene 1 version 2, post
production, produced by author. production, produced by author.
211
9.3.2 Compositional Value
The second area of future research looks at the compositional characteristics that
affect the style of the architectural rendering. This investigation delves further into the
fundament compositional elements that affect different styles. Potential investigations could
be made into experiments in colors, values, contrasts, materials, textures, shades, shadows and
depth in architectural perspective rendering compositions.
9.4 Research Conclusion
The architectural perspective rendering is a complex and expressive tool for

architectural representation. The different kinds of digitally produced architectural renderings
are as vast as the amount of different architectural design concepts. This body of research
identified the fundamental principles of architectural rendering. These principles identified
underlying foundational characteristics and qualities found in different styles of rendering
representations. The principles provide a framework to build on, which improve the overall
quality of the rendering. From this fundamental foundation, the potential artistic expression
and further development of the architectural rendering into open to imagination and the
possibilities are endless.
212
Bibliography
Baehr, Richard C., Architectural rendering in tempera. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1995.
Carpo, Mario/ Lemerle, Frederique. Perspective, Projections and Design: Technologies of

Architectural Representation. Routledge. London and New York. 2008.
Crowe, Philip. Architectural Rendering. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1991.
Cooper, Douglas. Drawing and Perceiving. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1992.
Fraser, Iain/ Henmi, Rod. Envisioning Architecture: An Analysis of Drawing. Van Nostrand
Reinhold. New York. 1994.
Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New
York. 1987.
Gubitosi, Camillo & Izzo, Alberto. Frank Lloyd Wright: Three-quarters of a Century of Drawings.
Horizon Press, New York. 1976.
Hensman, Donald C. Buff & Hensman. Architectural Guild Press. Los Angeles, California. 2004.
Kasprisin, Ronald J. Design media : techniques for watercolor, pen & ink, pastel and colored
marker. John Wiley. Chichester, England. 1999.
Laseau, Paul. Architectural Representation Handbook: Traditional and Digital Techniques for
Graphic Communication. McGraw-Hill. 2000.
Leonardis, Rocco. Systematic Guide to Perspective: A Step-by-Step handbook for the Classroom
and the Professional. New York School of Interior Design. New York. 1998.
Lockard, William Kirby. Design Drawing Experience. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. 2000.
Novitski, B.J. Rendering real and imagined buildings : the art of computer modeling from the
palace of Kublai Khan to Le Corbusier's villas. Rockport Publishers. Cincinnati, Ohio.
1998.
Oles, Paul Stevenson. Drawing the future : A Decade of American Architecture in Perspective
Drawings. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1987.
Pelletier, Louise/ Perez-Gomez, Alberto. Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge.
The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1997.
213
Rosa, Joseph. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. Rizzoli
International Publications, Inc. New York. 1994.
Schaller, Thomas W. The Art of Architectural Drawing : Imagination and Technique. Van Nostrand
Reinhold. New York. 1997.
Schillaci, Fabio. Architectural Renderings: Construction and Design Manual. DOM publishers.
Berlin, Germany. 2009.
Shen, Janet & Walker, Theodore D. Sketching and Rendering for Design Presentations. Van
Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1992.
Sobieszek, Robert. The Architectural Photography of Hedrich-Blessing. Holt, Rinehart and

Winston. New York. 1984.
Stamp, Gavin. The Great Perspectivists. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. New York. 1982.
214

Peterson - Ty - Spring 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peterson - Ty - Spring 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architectural Rendering I Fundamental Principles of Digital Image

Submitted towards the fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of

University of Hawai ❛i at Manoa

Doctorate Project Committee

Doctorate Project Committee

Hyoung-June Park I Chairperson

Stephen Grant Green

1.1 Architectural Rendering 1

Chapter 02 Research Methodology………………………………………………………… 8

2.1 Case Study Research 8

Chapter 03 Contemporary Rendering Analysis…………………………………………… 13

Chapter 04 Historical Rendering Analysis………………………………………………… 66

Chapter 05 Architectural Photography Analysis………………………………………….. 91

Chapter 06 Fundamental Principles………………………………………………………. 109

6.1 Introduction 109

Chapter 07 Principle Experiments...………………………………………………………. 144

7.1 Introduction 144

Chapter 08 Final Projects…………………………………………………………………. 181

8.1 Introduction 181

9.1 Research Review 205

9.1.1 Case Study Review 205

9.2 Research Contributions 208

9.2.1 Architectural Education 208

9.3 Future Research 210

9.3.1 Stylization in Architectural Rendering 210

9.4 Research Conclusion 212

In architecture, the computer is becoming the main tool of communication. The

There is a fundamental set of principles to the construction of digital architectural

The principle research findings identify a set of principles related to architectural

1.1 Architectural Rendering

More frequently in architecture, we use CG architectural perspective renderings as a

In recognizing and understanding the importance of an architectural perspective

Figure 1.02, MIR. 2010.

Figure 1.03, Casa SA house, Anonimous-LED, WAN. 2008.

This research investigation postulates that there is a set of fundamental rendering

1.3 Document Outline

In Chapter 3, 10 contemporary, industry leading, architectural visualization firms are

In Chapter 4, four key groups of historical architectural renderings are introduced.

In Chapter 5, two iconic architectural photographers and one leading architectural

In Chapter 6, the case study analysis information is synthesized into 10 fundamental

In Chapter 7, the 10 fundamental rendering principles are tested through computer

In Chapter 8, the proved principles and the identified step-by-step method of

2.1 Case Study Research

Figure 2.01, ¼ division grid. Figure 2.02, ⅓ division grid.

Figure 2.03, Horizon line, ¼ & ⅓ division grid overlay.

Figure 2.04, Empty data collection chart.

In summary, the case study research methodology will be implemented in Chapters 3,

Collection of Architectural Renderings

Contemporary Historical Architecutural

Data Analysis Chart & Grid System

Similarities Differences Similarities Differences Similarities Differences

Similar Principle Qualities

Figure 2.06, Case Study Principle Synthesis.

Following Chapter 6, which summarizes the derived fundamental principles, Chapter 7

Throughout the field of Architecture, high quality architectural renderings are

Based on MIR’s professional credentials, their production process and their

1 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-mir/, 2011

Figure 3.01, Data Chart, MIR.

Luxigon is a world leading architecture visualization firm whose work is represented

Luxigon’s philosophical rule when constructing a rendering is to ”“not make it dull”

3 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-luxigon/, 2011

4 Ronen Bekerman Interview, http://www.ronenbekerman.com/interview-with-luxigon/, 2011