It's pretty good... but the most realistic ever???

looks pretty good to me but needs something

At a quick glance....convincing!

Very convincing in my eyes. I love the way that the image is constructed in a way that seems very formal off the cuff shot but.. (uh oh I hear you say "Grin!") I really think that there needs to be something in the background to finish it and give the image depth... too much empty space around her. Otherwise I think she is great.

I particularly like this one, IMO it's about as close to 'real' as can be done by everyday artists using off the shelf tools:

To me the first picture looks like a Photo but this second picture ^ looks like a 3d render, it's missing something that the first one has, I can't explain what that something is but it's missing all the same.

Both looks amazingly real. Question is not what is missing in the picture(s) but what we are missing not able to render such amazing images.
I really would love to see a tutorial teaching how to achieve such results.

skintone shadow and depth i think could use some touch up may hap my eyes aint all that great but

IIRC, from CGTALK there was that psuedo-Polaroid image of a woman wearing pantyhose in some guys' room, that looked very very realistic.

Quote - To me the first picture looks like a Photo but this second picture ^ looks like a 3d render, it's missing something that the first one has, I can't explain what that something is but it's missing all the same.

The skin looks too grainy.  I suppose the artist is trying to simulate skin pores, but
they are a little too course and there isn't enough variation to look like real pores.

Quote - IIRC, from CGTALK there was that psuedo-Polaroid image of a woman wearing pantyhose in some guys' room, that looked very very realistic.

I remember that. He even went about showing his work about how he created the model.

when watching CGI realistic humans you have to think ''in context''

if you come in a thread with the title'' realistic CGI'' then your brain is already looking at images with CGI in mind.

the question is if you would show some of the pics here outside to people who are going to mcdonalds,shopping,caffe,..... the question is if they would this it looks fake.

Picture one very good but he feel short on the hair transmap
and the Dress cloth/texure looks very CG

second child pic...Sorry but I dont know why people keep referring to that image  as it is a clear case of subsurface scattering run AMOK!!
Her skin looks like pink wax
the very essence of creepy "uncanny valley" IMO.

Cheers

 There's something wax-like about the second one. It's a stunning render, but it looks like a photo of a wax figure, not a live person. Something you'd snape at Mme. Tusseauds.

An interesing point about live vs. figures btw. When you're face to face with the wax figures at Mme. Tusseauds they look really real - but somehow on a photo they fall though. Never figured out why. 

the OP's first img may look better in the original, but on my monitor (1.8 gamma) the hair edges look like they were produced by some masking plug-in like knockout or mask pro, hence that would equate it with a realistic photomanip IMVHO.

I asked my wife that know nothing and isn't interested about CG what she think about this pictures, she think the first one is a photograph with the smile made up in photoshop LOL, and inmediatly sayed the second one is not real "too much perfection covered by forced inperfections" she sayed, now if you ask me I like both of them a lot, and the mos real I've ever seen is the psuedo-Polaroid that dlfuman say at CGTALK.

Attached Link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817

No comment on the child.

I third the vote for the polaroid.

This is the render that lead me into 3D:

digitalbabes.jp/gallery/Lori.html

Now that I have some experience I see her shortcomings, but she's still impressive for a Poser 4 render...

The main issue i have with the 'polaroid' one is that it's all about the modelling, which is of course brilliant. The actual shading and lighting though is not that great (see the waist for an example of how plastic-y looking it is) And it doesn't help that the lighting doesn't match the background pic too well. Still better then i could do of course.

As for the first, it's really good work but the skin looks nothing like east asian skin. It's more like some odd middle eastern - european hybrid. And of course there is that unfortunate smile and chalky looking clothing. It is a fairly old render though so i wonder how much better it could be made with more current rendering tech.

If I had the link to it, I'd point to the CG version of Morgan Freeman. That still blows my mind.

Attached Link: http://www.tkio.net

Hair is usually one of the giveaways. I see that especially with the long side strands in the top image. Other than that, the eyes are amazing and really sell the image. If I didn't know I was looking at CG, I wouldn't go looking for hints, I'd think it was a photo.

I think some of the criticisms here are made because we're looking for things to criticize. E.g. the notion that the skin tone is wrong in image 1. As if there were such a thing as "east asian skin." There are a huge variety of skin tones in east Asia, as everywhere else. Besides, when looking at a photo, you never know exactly what has happened to tones, anyway.

I think the second image is far better than a lot of folks seem to credit it. I'll agree that the texture of the forehead and upper part of the nose is unnatural, and the nostril area is a bit too pristine, but otherwise, I buy it.

The Polaroid.. sorry, it took me several looks to perceive that she is supposed to be sitting/leaning on that chair. The face is believable, but the placement and shadowing are not, and wherever the body has bare skin, especially the lower torso, well, it's just not there. Still, if I were flipping through a bunch of images and not focusing, I might think it was a photo, and that's more than I can say for my own work (and most folks here, let's be honest). :)

The Defontaine images are awesome. Other than the hair, I have a bit of doubt about the wrinkles (wish I could do that well myself, mind)... there's something just a bit too "clean" about them.

Quote -
And it doesn't help that the lighting doesn't match the background pic too well. Still better then i could do of course.

LOL. The entire thing is 3d. Please refer to the thread linked with the image for information.

(speaking of CGSociety, I really wish the quote system here also attributed the poster's name with quotes. The lack thereof really becomes annoying in longer threads)

I have the same opinion than ice-boy, its' easy to create a "real skin" with a blured background ( i can lay one each day ), integrate it in a real atmosphere is another thing ...

Is there no better CGI, all the process are differents, all depend the atmosphere ...

Quote - Believable3D : Hair is usually one of the giveaways.

Mace Windu dont have this problem :-)))

For me the first look real and not real, we see the fact she's not real, its this way who make us think she's real ...

The second sorry, a Barbie, too much plastic, procedural bump too many sss ...

The third, a reservethe only thing who shok me is the shadow ... shadow of the legs on the wall but not on the floor ...

For the others from tkio dont have opinion, screen shoots with a bit of photoshop ? who said ...

Quote - LOL. The entire thing is 3d. Please refer to the thread linked with the image for information.

What does that have to do with anything ? It's obvious that the artist has done the foreground and background separately and composited them in post. This can be clearly seen in the odd shadows cast by the girl on the background.

:-)
The third is a simulation of a cheap digital camera flash shot, the one's with the flash to the left of the lens. IMO, the shadow's are exactly what one would expect within that criteria.
Personally, I think the "out-of-the-box" thinking that went into painstakingly recreating (with CG) a cheesy amateurish look deserves acknowledgment, or at least a smile (which, ironically, is what is unrealistic about the all three images, lips tightly shut).
Of course, far too many cg images have figures with all the facial expression of Robert Palmer's girl band.

The Morgan Freeman picture previously mentioned can be found near the bottom of this page,  http://www.josemlazaro.com/blog/

Coincidentally, it was in the first issue of 3DArtist magazine along with a Heath Ledger Joker picture, which was also pretty mind blowing. The Heath Ledger Joker was done by the artist who did the picture in the first post of this thread, and can be seen here (although not the picture that was in the mag), http://student.vfs.com/~3d68max/joker.html