Attached Link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=532817

Lightly clad but not nude

Edit: tripped the switch just in case

Quote - I think this ups the realism chart when you even start to resemble bad home flash shots of your girlfriend...;) I like where this edgy take on modeling talent goes. Is it real? yes. Is it art? LOL Glad I don't have to judge!!! If it was indeed a picture,,, It does confound.  Even Stahlberg bit.

Lightly clad but not nude

Edit: tripped the switch just in case

Well, I'm totally blown away, and personally, I think this is the single most astounding piece of 3D realism I've ever seen.  Just when you think you're getting somewhere, someone raises the bar out of reach again. LOL.

From what I see in his line of comments, Stahlberg may have some problems with the subject matter or the way it was presented, but even he calls it  "the most realistic cyber girl of all time".  Man, that's quite an honor coming from him, and I must agree.

:ohmy: :thumbupboth:

Amazing.

*but even he calls it  "the most realistic cyber girl of all time".  Man, that's quite an honor coming from him, and I must agree.

*Hiya Maxxx

I'd hate to be in his position... Having to drop a star for a "taste" issue on a breakthrough cg image...lol ..groan... kinda stinks a bit

or,,, art imitates life imitates art???

You have to get your head around it before you judge. Great thread, though

Quote - *but even he calls it  "the most realistic cyber girl of all time".  Man, that's quite an honor coming from him, and I must agree.

*Hiya Maxxx

I'd hate to be in his position... Having to drop a star for a "taste" issue on a breakthrough cg image...lol ..groan... kinda stinks a bit

or,,, art imitates life imitates art???

You have to get your head around it before you judge. Great thread, though

Nah, it seems straightforward to me.  It's an astounding breakthrough because it's a damn near perfect representation of an amateur photo.  Many people have complained that CGI looks too clean and precise.  This has just hit back but not in the way anyone expected.

Looking through the guy's gallery, he's very good with postwork and bringing out that "crappy" blur that a dinky camera makes - that's not a slam, that's high praise, even if it's not something I'd care to spend 5 years on myself.  Seriously an impressive image.

I've seen a few efforts that compare well to this one at cgsociety.

An image like this is way overdue. Real-world lighting. An artist brave enough to make his render "not perfect" in the traditional sense. On the other hand, it's so real, it's scarey!

Many people have complained that CGI looks too clean and precise.  This has just hit back but not in the way anyone expected.
 
Exactly. My problem in cgi is the overpowering detail. Considering the human eye can only focus on a spot the size of a large coin,, this makes a render follow photo logic in a quest for realism. The viewer's eye has to be confined. Taking this "snapshot" approach just heightens that logic and looses the some of the resolution "clutter" that kills realism.

I think the couple of people ripping on the guy for the "cheap photo" look are really missing the point.  Obviously the guy is capable of really impressive composition, lighting, framing and focus when he cares to do it, his choice was to emulate a bad snapshot - and he did it so subtly it's very very hard to pick out where it's not quite realistic (for me, only the toes really don't quite look perfect).

Quote - Taking this "snapshot" approach just heightens that logic and looses the some of the resolution "clutter" that kills realism.

Agreed.

I went through that thread expecting to find some punchline; some "reveal" post saying "haha, fooled you!".  It never came, and instead my jaw was left hanging as I looked at the WIP snapshots and shots of the wireframe model, and I began to re-evaluate my own approach to achieving realism all this time.

I don't think I had ever laid eyes on a render before that had me so convinced of it's authenticity, or should I say, lack thereof (depends on how you look at it).  So to me, on a personal level, this is most definitely high art.

Can anyone articulate the things that makes this image stand out? I am having trouble identfying what particular things have been done that makes the image look so much like snapshot as opposed to CGI. Can any of these things be applied to Poser renders?

Most of what is going on there could probably be obtained through postwork, I think.  It's not really the model, although that's certainly good; the textures are superb in the WIP photos, but blurred in post so it's not so much that; it's the blurring and grain and flashbulb effect that makes it really impressive to me.

That is very impressive!

Quote - Can anyone articulate the things that makes this image stand out? I am having trouble identfying what particular things have been done that makes the image look so much like snapshot as opposed to CGI. Can any of these things be applied to Poser renders?

In my opinion, it's the models, the shading (near perfect SSS simulation), the facial expression, the lighting, the way she's posed, the post fx; it's everything, and how it all came together just perfectly to simulate a photorealistic recreation.  I've seen this style of lighting effect done before many times in many different renderers like Maxwell and MentalRay (flashbulb and/or photometrically accurate flashlight simulations).  It always struck me as an interesting lighting approach that's almost never used well, or often, with the specific intent of creating realism in CG.  Not many people try to duplicate a bad photo, and even fewer actually succeed to this kind of level.

I know that girl.. I was at that same party... 'tis good isn't it!

Quote - I know that girl.. I was at that same party... 'tis good isn't it!

You dated her a couple times.  Right, Deane? 

The particular thing is generally, people tend to do realism in cgi as perfect image. i.e. a perfect girl, perfectly symmetrical face, skin without any spots or else, white teeth, perfect lighting...
In real life, nothing is perfect. I guess this picture could have been very crisp and clear, with bright contrast and all, but all the realism would have gone away (though i guess it would be very fine already...)
Sometimes, what bring the better realism, is to un-pretty the picture. We have now the use to see very beautifull women without any things wrong, but hu... except me, who is perfect in this world?

;P

it's excellent, no doubt. i saw a coupla minor technical errors, but nobody else will spot 'em, so no point in detailing 'em. the main problem is that the scene may have used projection mapping, which would mean that it would only work from a very limited range of camera angles. however, as we can see from the image, it only needs to work from one angle. Q.E.D.

What image? I go there and all I see is a thread with posts and no links or images.

Quote - What image? I go there and all I see is a thread with posts and no links or images.

The photo that is not a photo IS the pic in question LOL

Quote - it's excellent, no doubt. i saw a coupla minor technical errors, but nobody else will spot 'em, so no point in detailing 'em. the main problem is that the scene may have used projection mapping, which would mean that it would only work from a very limited range of camera angles. however, as we can see from the image, it only needs to work from one angle. Q.E.D.

He specifically states there was no projection mapping, and I can see by his WIP and texture maps (which he offers up for scrutiny later in the thread) that this is true.

That makes no sense.  All I see is what is in the screen capture.

What image is being talked about? I don't see any image other than an avatar.

Quote -
He specifically states there was no projection mapping, and I can see by his WIP and texture maps (which he offers up for scrutiny later in the thread) that this is true.

No, it's not projection mapped per-se, that much is obvious.  However, he does indicate that it's never meant to be viewed from multiple angles.  I'm assuming this is due to specific lighting and shading that's been perfected for this specific angle, because the models and textures aren't dodgy.  Believe me, they'll hold his feet to the coals over there at CGsociety if he used any lowly cheat techniques beyond what is normally considered acceptable for the 3D works there.  Especially now that he has Stahlberg's attention.

acadia,,

Do you have "no nudity" checked?  Too good a thing to miss. Try another carrier

I have an image bookmarked from that site which was posted a couple years ago.

http://mkor.cgsociety.org/gallery/219323/

Quote - acadia,,

Do you have "no nudity" checked?  Too good a thing to miss. Try another carrier

 

I don't have anything checked there. I don't go there.

Maybe the problem is that the link goes to a thread instead of an actual image in the gallery?

Maybe someone can post the actual link to the image instead of the thread talking about it?

Hey guys,

Well, the screen grabs look ok, but the big black image with a thin strip o render along the top is kind of disappointing in my view.

Huh? I hate pcs..

CGSociety>Forums>3Dstills>Weird Science/Lee Perry Smith aka INFINITE

Quote - Believe me, they'll hold his feet to the coals over there at CGsociety if he used any lowly cheat techniques beyond what is normally considered acceptable for the 3D works there.  Especially now that he has Stahlberg's attention.

Plus he made the front page there, so it's garnering the attention of some other big players too.  He's doing a decent job at presenting all the screencaps and evidence of legitimacy he could offer though.

Miss Nancy:> Quote - it's excellent, no doubt. i saw a coupla minor technical errors, but nobody else will spot 'em, so no point in detailing 'em. the main problem is that the scene may have used projection mapping, which would mean that it would only work from a very limited range of camera angles. however, as we can see from the image, it only needs to work from one angle. Q.E.D.

I would like to know what you are thinking.

Ok, I finally managed to see the image. I had to add the site to my safe sites in my firewall.

Looks like a photograph to me.

http://infinite.cgsociety.org/gallery/479778/

There is a video showing a sped up process of his creations.

At the end of it he is on screen...and I must say that he is very easy on the eyes! 

WOW!

What great work.

Of course, what I REALLY found interesting was the "debate" over the work. I guess griping and personal preferences and those who take upon themselves to champion "The Standard" are all over the place (I know this, but just had to restate it. I do love me some life-challenged equine pugilism:) )

As a mere and lowly Poser user I dont feel so bad.

One thing to consider is that he achieves his "ultra-realism" by simulating a low quality "snapshot". When people render at super high resolutions, they actually make the realism problem much harder for themselves. There's a grainy effect, and some fogging, plus the "in-your-face cheapo flash hard shadows" -- these artifacts read as "snapshot" to our eyes.

I wouldn't mind having a body texture like that for V3! Simply amazing image. At first I was convinced it was a photo being pawned off as a cgi image.

I think another thing that goes a long way toward the realism is the model's face.
It has lines and buldges.  You can actually see cheekbones and the jawbone
and the "parenthesis" around the mouth.  And the nose looks like a nose,
not something a plastic surgeon would make.  The only odd thing is one
stocking top is wider than the other. The toes don't look quite right either.

The room itself is even more realistic. (From the thread I got the idea it is
CGI too)  The bad paint on the trim is an excellent touch.

Attached Link: click here

Well he posted a link to it, and as you can see, there are better looking textures readily available as freebies. I do see he did some painting of face lines on the bump map, worth experimenting with. The realism in the pic lies in the skin shading, lighting, rendering engine and post work, not so much the texture.

hmmm...I'm just a shmuck nobody, but when I first looked at the image, i thought immediately to myself..it looks like someone did a masking of a photo, cut out the body,  and layered it over a background and that it was poorly done...no shadows, the body somewhat floating in the air and stuff.
The figure herself looks damn good...what can you say.

The only way one can tel it's not a photo, other then the WIP posts, is her toes. There's no weight on them, and the feet look a tiny bit floaty.
Amazing what can be done!

I wonder if it would look that realistic if the author went for high quality photo look.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=532817 All the power of science and technology coupled with intense artistic focus devoted to simulating a crappy soft-core snapshot. Hmmm

I couldn't see the pic, so I pasted the link into the address bar.  That didn't work, so I clicked the back button and there was the pic.  Very good work, but I want to see it from another angle to see what the limitations of it are.

Well, it is a realistic image and the guy deserves due credit, but for me it could be better. Firstly, the scaleof the character is way out when you compare her to the door on the left...she must be about 7 feet tall. The skin shader could be better...a lack of hi-lights on the torso make the skin look plastic to me. SSS would also bring out more subtle shades from beneath the skin.
None the less, a very good image.

Quote - The only way one can tel it's not a photo, other then the WIP posts, is her toes. There's no weight on them, and the feet look a tiny bit floaty.
Amazing what can be done!

I wonder if it would look that realistic if the author went for high quality photo look.

I thought the face looked rather flat, somehow, and that "times table" poster looks off to me... can't put my finger on it.  Otherwise impressive.

*Edited to add for Cheers:  I thought the scale was off because it looks like she's in a children's classroom, which is a subject for a whole other thread.

It's interesting to me to note that his weapon of choice is Lightwave.

I'd say give it just a few more years.  Renders like his -- which he took five years to produce (:ohmy: !?) -- and which so amazes people for the present -- will become standard five minute (or less) output from Poser, and from Poser-esque applications.  This is not to take away from the technical success that he's achieved here -- which he clearly has.  But it is a prediction about where CG is headed in the near future.

Absolutely stunning technique -- but spending FIVE YEARS of one's personal time to create.......that?  How long did Michelangelo spend on the Sistine Chapel again?  I'll have to go look it up..............

*It's interesting to me to note that his weapon of choice is Lightwave.

*I was wondering what he used. He put up the plugin for the light effects to download if you are interested..

but spending FIVE YEARS of one's personal time to create.......*that?

That was a typo. He corrected to 5 years in cgi. This makes sense.. The render build was pretty quick.
Have to agree that this level of realism will be surpassed very soon and many times over

The door on the right is a closet, or storage door. The door on the left is a normal door. (There's one like that in my house.) If you look at the other images in his gallery at CGTalk, he's perfectly capable of "good lighting" and producing the same level of realism. It's not the textures, or the modeling, or the light. It's the way he brings them all together. It doesn't hurt that he uses real faces, either, with all their imperfections.

Quote - *It's interesting to me to note that his weapon of choice is Lightwave.

*I was wondering what he used. He put up the plugin for the light effects to download if you are interested..

Sure, I'll download his light set.

Quote - *but spending FIVE YEARS of one's personal time to create.......that?

• That was a typo. He corrected to 5 years in cgi. This makes sense.. The render build was pretty quick.

Ah....thanks for pointing that out.  I haven't had the time to read the thread in close detail.

Quote - Have to agree that this level of realism will be surpassed very soon and many times over

Heh......give it five years (or perhaps even less), and an image like this one will be a yawner.  Maybe it'll even come in for sentiments such as: "*What are you posting this junk in here for?"

*But for the moment, he's got his time in the (3D) sun.

Quote - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=532817 All the power of science and technology coupled with intense artistic focus devoted to simulating a crappy soft-core snapshot. Hmmm

Art imitating Life?

Quote - > Quote - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=532817 All the power of science and technology coupled with intense artistic focus devoted to simulating a crappy soft-core snapshot. Hmmm

 

Art imitating Life?

Yep.

personally I saw it as a fake soon as I glanced at it. there's a dead give away that glares.

look at her groin. wrong...! the skin is perfect.. not a mark, blemish or imperfection (if you are that perfect there please call Hugh Hephner at Playboy and get into the magazine.. it'll save him a fortune in airbrushing overheads!) ... and the specular looks like plastic there.

it's not bad work I grant you... but no one else saw that error?