Joe your creditbility is shot if you think V3 was more realistic than V4. I respect you from other encounters, but that is a very wrong thought. Please explain if you actually meant that. I can't believe you actually mean it.

Further:
"Photorealism" is not photography. "Photorealism" is a school of serious art that rose to prominence in the 60s and 70s. It was not then, and is not now, photography. It is a "take" on reality, a confrontation of naturalism vs romanticism, but with no intention to fool the viewer. It is a comentary on realism.

You rudely crushed my first attempt to convey this to you by denying my context. Here: I will fix that by stipulating something on your side of the argument:

If one's goal in 3D is to 1) emulate a clinical photograph, or; 2) create a model that can be viewed from any angle in a static investigation having nothing to do with artistic interpretation, then yes, V4 is not real. It fails. Believe me, so does every other model I have ever seen, right up to Stahlberg and his peers. Maybe some digital models in the medical 3D world are getting closer.

Now that you have that, you can consider yourself un-slapped in the face, okay?

But do not slap the face of an interpretive artist or entertainment creator by saying that our expressions are sloppy etc. because we make do with imperfect models.

Do you want to test this idea? Do this thought experiment: take your hypothetical perfectly scanned, perfectly rigged human model. Put it in the hands of a someone who does not grasp how to "see."  They will create a static pose or animation with your model that will not engage anyone in verisimilitude. It will be dead and inhuman. Your "Photorealism" is dead.

Now take an imperfect model from Daz or whoever, and put it into the hands of an artist who understands how to "represent the human form." He/she will make people weep or cry or scream with laughter. No one will notice if the sholder blades are missing, or the kneecaps.

::::: Opera :::::