Cineversity

Hi there,

I’m working on modelling out my home. I also work on making sets professionally for films too. I’ve been using the measure and construction tool and was wondering if there was any advice on building to dimension without orthographic plans of some kind, because I find myself working so often without them, but need to be able to display competent dimensions nonetheless.

Any advice is welcome guys?

Edit: The number part was in question, not the appearance or the relation to the other parts (camera, light, action) in a movie. See replies below, post #3 /edit.

Hi Fauntail,

Set building has a lot to do with the story you will find in the script. Anything else is not that important, e.g.,  mostly anything can be scaled. Wow, you might think, that is not the answer I hoped for. Right. But just I toss some stuff here in that I have learned as Architect and used then as set designer back in Berlin. I know that I can’t bottle up my knowledge, even I really would love to and share it.

In set design the most important part is, can it transfer the information that we need, and that is always through the lens. So, what lens or way more importantly: WHERE is that lens. There is again only one answer, where it needs to be to tell the story. Now. I could give you the Cinematography books that I have read over the past 30+ years, and it would keep you busy for a year or two. But any camera position will change the impact of any set design.

My advice, set design needs to be the supportive actor and it is a layer in the movie that comes in, when the main actor has less screen time. So how would you film that? What is filmic? Again, what ever I read in my life or studied about film, it comes back to the story. Nothing else matters.

From that point on, the synergy idea, while keeping a clear hierarchy, kicks in. Set up a camera (Learn blocking for example as well) and what would support the (again) progress of the story, what is not known. Set design informs the audience about many things, so important parts will need details, less parts, less sources of information will need less, or perhaps should even have less.

So, set up a figure (for scale), a camera and go from there. Otherwise, it is just working from a blue print (i.e., numbers), and producing more than is needed (speaking as an indie filmmaker)

Does this help?

Cheers

Hi Dr. Sassi,

first, allow me to express my gratitude for your help, as always. Its amazing what you do for us folks on here.

On the other hand, your answer seems a lot more wholistic and larger in scope than perhaps I was hoping for, unfortunately. I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful reply though! That said, perhaps I could clarify one step further?

I’ve attached a file and colored the middle rectangle red. Lets say I wanted to ring select the middle edges (long ones)that outline the red rectangle and set a specific dimension for those. Is there a way to do that without editing the dimensions of those side rectangles?

Thanks for specifying the question, Fauntail!

I read again your initial question, and yes, to my ears it has both in it, holistically as well as numerically.

Since the word set design came in, my mind was wandering in the themes of very small and very large scales. Perhaps more between like a small kitchen set, or a factory/warehouse scale, or even a mile long spaceship (ID4). Which brought me to talk about the requirements from a set designer/art-director, who turns scripts, storyboards, even animatics into something one can touch. Since you told me that you have already intermediate experience with a previous app, my decision to go into that direction was more plausible, than in the other. I missed the target, sorry for your extra time. Just another case where a scene file would have saved time

Here is a little clip, showcasing a typical set up for size, based on your file.:
https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/8nmpsSNoM6xU3y9F7xHpE5KIFa7pGI8PrhcPhS304MD
At 30 seconds, and that is very important, the points move over existing points! So, it can create polygons placed in the same position, or with Normals facing in the opposite direction. This can cause trouble!

Typically, the project size matters, in terms of several aspects, as in IES lights, dynamics, and other parts that might show up wrongly, if we use the numbers just as units. But to build a model, I would go with something like the old rule, to keep the numbers before and after the period equally (It’s an old rule and we have more precision these days, but it can’t hurt.) Pure polygon models can be scaled later on, but always make tests first, before investing lots of time.

During my time working with CAD, I learned to love guides, as well as raster and snapping. Of course it depends on the things one needs to create. To layout ideas with the tools in C4D is certainly a good idea, or just scribble with a spline, perhaps even use the Tools> Doodle to sketch things and see how it works.  Perhaps block out the idea with cubes and other standard geometry objects (Primitives) render it and use it as background even, to have less “clutter” in the scene, but you asked without something like that in the background.

Again, since the numbers are so prominent in the interface, I really didn’t got the question of “scale” that way.

Let me know if that answered your question.

Cheers

Suggestions:
https://www.cineversity.com/vidplaytut/photo-realistic_chairs_part_04
https://www.cineversity.com/vidplaytut/guide_lines_and_planes