Is it real or is it CGI? Thread
I think it would be interesting to post images that make you seriously ask yourself if the image is really just a computer generated construct, or an actual photograph. And vice-versa.
My first contribution: is here
In this case, it looks like either a photograph or a painting to me.
It's actually Half-Life 2
My first contribution: is here
In this case, it looks like either a photograph or a painting to me.
It's actually Half-Life 2
Comments
If thats an example of what your talking about......
It's total crap...Er..... total computer generated junk...
These creators never get the skies right..nor the surfaces with light bouncing off them...its way way too complex...
Long way to go before they fool even a bimbo with a throwaway camera....
Ps I hope I'm not trashing your work......tho
The rest are somewhat obvious but still really well done. I have a feeling that within ten or 20 years, we'll see some very realistic computer renderings used very widely. As it is now, none are quite convincing enough to use in a serious film... the last one like that was Final Fantasy which was amazing back then but is only average for today. There are more films that are less serious and just fun, like Finding Nemo, Shrek, or Monsters Inc, because they don't need to have perfect CGI skills to make them good. Even so, they're pushing the technology quite well... remember Sully's fur from Monsters Inc? Quite amazing.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Well, that picture is pretty obviously 3D rendered. Look at the person's hands... it's a dead giveaway. CGI animators can never get the hands quite right, they're just too complex.
Yeah, why don't they just give them four fingers like Bart & Lisa, or any runadamill cartoony character...that way we can all have a larf and they can quit the pretence to reality........
obvious texture mapping on some surfaces (gun, wall, brick bldg)
suggests insufficient polygon count or inaccurate raytracing of shadows...
given sun point (shadow on wall of brick bldg) soldiers/guns should have different shadow/depth cues.
metallic building inconsistent lighting given shadow (backside lit)
depth cued fog in sky (obscuring tower) inconsistent with lighting effect
no radiosity (buttercup under chin makes chin look yellow)
in metal helmet/hands/gun from uniform
yadda yadda overly picky additional tips this is (average) CGI
--
dudesir_hanson_new3.jpg is clearly CG... rock and tree textures give it away
stool.jpg is clearly CG... hair is the giveaway. stool lighting too.
otherwise she's very impressive... and hot.
liquid_arts (JD) and (Bonsai) are tough to call. macro lens effects are convincing.
might be composites of photo elements, but small inconsistencies, if not artifacts, are giveaways
if pressed, i'd say "very impressive CG" or "nice photos that compress badly"
but it's late and my eyes aren't at their sharpest
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/gall..._zoom/com4.htm
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/gall...gal/sav_in.htm
I'm not meaning to bag a newish medium..I am sure all mediums have to go through Juvenelia..But the sad truth is that it hasn't even begun to reach its potential..There are so many possible avenues of creative vision to be explored & yet mostly we just get Borg-ville or femz with big tits & attitude or Psycho-killer types or mayhem scenarios....It's friggn boring.........
mainly because it was done as much as 80 years ago...See image of Metropolis the grand-mother of all CGI Borg look alikes...
CGI is at a level of maturity commensurate with a child bashing on a tin drum Vs Bach, Beethoven or Mozart.....It's Crap Vs sublimnity.....
I know it's an age thing, & there are commercial imperatives driving the agenda, but I can't wait for the day that CGI artists can take their place along side Da-Vinci, Monet, or any other artists in the fine art field.....
As a trained photoshop artist, I still prefer to go to my studio & paint "real " painting on canvas with oils & brushes....
Maybe the day will come when CGI artists will break out of the SCi-Fi mold and just paint flowers etc....
Originally posted by tmp
Funny, I was walking up Robertson behind a woman who was so skinny she looked like she was CGI. It was actually frightenng. When she turned the corner I saw who it was: Lara Flynn Boyle.
badumdum
liquid arts... the bottle cap looks a little off, as if it is resting on some other plain....
The guys at WETA digital doing the Lord of The Rings stuff (with now-Apple-owned software Shake) know their thing. Both movies have the most realistic CG elements I have ever seen. Then there's movies like "The Hulk" which are abominations to CG's development. Who would let that kind of trash fly? Just put the guy in a suit, or build robots like Spielberg managed to for so many decades.
But I mean, the entire Mines of Moria sequence in LOTR and now the Ents in the Two Towers...amazing stuff.
(clickable for full size and how it was made...)
as for believable natural scenery, specifically plants...
back in 1989 or 1990 i came across a French company called CIRAD who made an organic plant modelling tool called AMAP. one of their images of a jungle river scene went on to win a CRAY award, at was featured at SIGGRAPH.
can't find the full size, but this
PC users might run 3dMark and check out the CGI trees in the latest version... hard to tell it's rendered on the fly as a benchmark tool... looks photograhic
The problem is CGI is gnerally just too perfect and real life isn't, adding dirt and dents and blurring makes all the difference.
There have been films with photoperfect CGI, and strangely, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the budget or reputation, ironically, the best effects I've ever seen were in Evolution.
Andrew
Gilles Tran's good.
p.s. there's nothing wrong with treating a cg image to make it look more real, like that jack daniels' bottle. in fact, where most cg falls down is that it tries to be too perfect, and we notice when there is a lack of imperfections. throw some grain and duotoning in, and bam... good luck finding the fake.
also, in cg animation, body movements must be planned days, weeks, and sometimes MONTHS in advance. that's why final fantasy bugged me so much. real-world movies take dozens of takes to get the "perfect shot," because there is that unpredictable nature of human expression, where an actor/ress can deliver a line with enough unintentional subtlety between takes that one is perfect, while the other is so-so. for photo-realistic cg, where facial twicthes must be mapped out over a week, you lose all spontenaity.
more cartoonish cg (like finding nemo) benefit from the fact that all of their motions and expressions are expected to be over the top, and happiness, shock, anger, etc. can be boiled down into predictable patterns. we expect it in cartoons. we subconsciously expect the unpredictable the more realistic it is presented as, ans notice it when it's too perfect.
Are there any other quizzes similar to that online now?
Originally posted by tonton
This was rendered in Maya:
http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/fa..._lily_02_1.jpg
Nice. Excuse the amateur question but how does one 'render' that i.e. how can you render calliagraphy?
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
http://www.oyonale.com/ldc/english/family_night.htm
Gilles Tran's good.