Calgary Construction XXVI

[ST1]

The ultimate example of why you shouldn't zoom in. No offense, but that second pic is almost impossible to look at. It takes the same amount of effort to crop the original image, rather than re-size the whole image.

You'r probably re-sizing for our benefit and it's appreciated, but the crop would be better, and then re-size after wards, if the image is still large.

Originally Posted by Daemon

Lady and not the least Telus Sky


Close up angle

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

It’s crappy and suburban looking but I don’t care either way, as the burbs are where it’s showing up. As long as we don’t see this stuff showing up in the core I’m happy.

It may be the burbs but this is in a key area of Seton across from the hospital and beside the amazing new rec centre. It’s a terrible way to kick off the community. There are no SFH’s in Seton and it’s supposed to be more of an urban village centred around the hospital and future lrt.

Also this material is cropping up everywhere including the inner city. Look no further than Torode in Inglewood.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Great to hear! Is that the old Blockbuster video building? That location could definitely use some more density. Any links to the project or idea of the name or developer?

Nice! That and the old Blockbuster on 17 really are dead zones.

[Sands]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Nice! That and the old Blockbuster on 17 really are dead zones.

A Toronto developer with aggressive timeline on this project. We will see something next Spring.

[BlaineN]

Originally Posted by Sands

A Toronto developer with aggressive timeline on this project. We will see something next Spring.

Great news indeed. Did you go to the community meeting?

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by ST1

The ultimate example of why you shouldn't zoom in. No offense, but that second pic is almost impossible to look at. It takes the same amount of effort to crop the original image, rather than re-size the whole image.

You'r probably re-sizing for our benefit and it's appreciated, but the crop would be better, and then re-size after wards, if the image is still large.

Here's a couple of links to some iPhone Android camera tips.

https://drfone.wondershare.com/iphone-ti...uoqiK2AIVAsRkCh3xNgt_EAAYASAAEgL7Z_D_BwE

https://www.imore.com/ten-tips-taking-great-iphone-photos

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/how-to-take-better-pictures-with-android/

https://www.androidpit.com/tips-tricks-smartphone-photography

[dg66]

Don’t waste your time. If your taking pics of construction sites from crescent road using an iFail they aren’t going to turn out no matter. You can get good point and click camara that would do better and they would be maybe 100 dollars or less. Do yourselve a favour.

Originally Posted by SteveP

Here's a couple of links to some iPhone Android camera tips.

https://drfone.wondershare.com/iphone-ti...uoqiK2AIVAsRkCh3xNgt_EAAYASAAEgL7Z_D_BwE

https://www.imore.com/ten-tips-taking-great-iphone-photos

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/how-to-take-better-pictures-with-android/

https://www.androidpit.com/tips-tricks-smartphone-photography

[KoolKool]

just buy a camera . 300-400 one would do

[ST1]

Originally Posted by KoolKool

just buy a camera . 300-400 one would do

$300 - $400? Just like DG66 said, you don't need to spend more than 100 bucks. A decent Canon or Nikon pint and click will run you around 100 bucks, maybe a bit more, but they do a great job. The iphone and android have great cameras, but are designed for shooting objects around 300m or less. Those point and clicks typically have some zoom optical zoom built in.

Optical Zoom vs Digital zoom. I never knew anything about this kinda stuff until my brother in law explained it to me, and now it makes sense why an iPhone won't take great pics from a distance. It's all optical zoom on the iPhones.
http://www.dummies.com/photography/digit...and-digital-zoom-on-your-digital-camera/

[craner]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

What are people's thoughts on this new hardie board siding that is cropping up everywhere in the city? It either looks decent or completely awful (worst being Torode's abortion in Inglewood). I haven't seen much in between. I'm very disappointed in this Cedarglen project even though I didn't have much faith to begin with. Renderings vs reality:

Simply terrible, both the renders and the built reality.
Don't know what else to say really.
One has to ask - Who?, Why? and How?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ST1

$300 - $400? Just like DG66 said, you don't need to spend more than 100 bucks. A decent Canon or Nikon pint and click will run you around 100 bucks, maybe a bit more, but they do a great job. The iphone and android have great cameras, but are designed for shooting objects around 300m or less. Those point and clicks typically have some zoom optical zoom built in.

Optical Zoom vs Digital zoom. I never knew anything about this kinda stuff until my brother in law explained it to me, and now it makes sense why an iPhone won't take great pics from a distance. It's all optical zoom on the iPhones.
http://www.dummies.com/photography/digit...and-digital-zoom-on-your-digital-camera/

I think you have that backwards. Optical zoom actually uses an extendible lense which lets you zoom in whereas digital zoom takes a picture and will digitally enlarge a section of it using the same dpi. That’s why it ends up looking grainy. iPhones and other smart phones use digital zoom.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by craner

Simply terrible, both the renders and the built reality.
Don't know what else to say really.
One has to ask - Who?, Why? and How?

If you try to think about it, which you probably shouldn’t, it seems like they want to spend as little money as possible but make it eye catching and “edgy”. Thus they pick ridiculous colours and then cheap out on the material and end up with this garbage. The worst part is it looks like there are to be 4 of these monstrosities.

[Calgarian]

Hardi is ok, the colours people are choosing is the problem, as is the cheap and ugly easy trim they are using with it.

[SteveP]

Optical zoom is the actual lens zoom if I'm not mistaken, and digital zoom is what the iphone's and such try to do. If you look at the iphone you'll see it's a fixed lens and doesn't physically move in or out.

Originally Posted by ST1

$300 - $400? Just like DG66 said, you don't need to spend more than 100 bucks. A decent Canon or Nikon pint and click will run you around 100 bucks, maybe a bit more, but they do a great job. The iphone and android have great cameras, but are designed for shooting objects around 300m or less. Those point and clicks typically have some zoom optical zoom built in.

Optical Zoom vs Digital zoom. I never knew anything about this kinda stuff until my brother in law explained it to me, and now it makes sense why an iPhone won't take great pics from a distance. It's all optical zoom on the iPhones.
http://www.dummies.com/photography/digit...and-digital-zoom-on-your-digital-camera/

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Hardi is ok, the colours people are choosing is the problem, as is the cheap and ugly easy trim they are using with it.

Yes that easy trim is what kills it. Every project that uses that looks horrible. The nasty colours also don't help.

Here's an example of how to do it successfully:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0377655,-...B5K9wd1lw55uA3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

Matching trim, no hideous colours and a mix of other materials.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by SteveP

Optical zoom is the actual lens zoom if I'm not mistaken, and digital zoom is what the iphone's and such try to do. If you look at the iphone you'll see it's a fixed lens and doesn't physically move in or out.

SteveP is correct. Optical zoom is far superior, whereas digital zoom is in effect cropping and enlarging smaller and smaller sections of a larger image (resulting in pixelation / low qual images). The other challenge with mobile phones and smaller point and click cameras is small lenses, so limited ability to pull in enough light in low-light conditions. They are "okay" when it is bright out.

I'll stop there as we are on a tangent, but with the large cumulative number of photos from Daemon on this thread, the relevance hopefully is understood. I had previously also suggested to Daemon to consider getting a real camera (as photography is clearly an interest to him).

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes that easy trim is what kills it. Every project that uses that looks horrible. The nasty colours also don't help.

Here's an example of how to do it successfully:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0377655,-...B5K9wd1lw55uA3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

Matching trim, no hideous colours and a mix of other materials.

I agree that the project you highlighted is a much better example. We shouldn't categorically demonize this product, but certainly should be critical where it is used badly.

Is Strategic's project on 16th (across north hill) the same stuff? That one looked bad in the renders. It is still not particularly good, but I find the real building still has come out better than the drawings had depicted.

There are now 5 or 6 condo buildings at various stages of construction currently in the university district. I'm curious how they end up relative to their drawings. Really happy they put some effort into landscaping first in that area (IE the drainage pond and pedestrian boulevard are forming nicely).

[s211]

Originally Posted by craner

Simply terrible, both the renders and the built reality.
Don't know what else to say really.
One has to ask - Who?, Why? and How?

I guess this stuff is the replacement for stucco? One awful product replaced by another that is just as low-brow.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes that easy trim is what kills it. Every project that uses that looks horrible. The nasty colours also don't help.

Here's an example of how to do it successfully:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0377655,-...B5K9wd1lw55uA3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

Matching trim, no hideous colours and a mix of other materials.

That one still uses easy trim I believe, it just matches the panels so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I agree that the project you highlighted is a much better example. We shouldn't categorically demonize this product, but certainly should be critical where it is used badly.

Is Strategic's project on 16th (across north hill) the same stuff? That one looked bad in the renders. It is still not particularly good, but I find the real building still has come out better than the drawings had depicted.

There are now 5 or 6 condo buildings at various stages of construction currently in the university district. I'm curious how they end up relative to their drawings. Really happy they put some effort into landscaping first in that area (IE the drainage pond and pedestrian boulevard are forming nicely).

Yes that Strategic building uses the same hardie paneling. When I drove by it appeared to at least have matching trim. I think that helped it.