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

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

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

:ohmy: :thumbupboth:

Amazing.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

*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.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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.

My Freebies

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).

My Freebies

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

My Freebies

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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? 

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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

My Store

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.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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

My Store

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

> Quote - > 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

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.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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/

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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! 

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

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.

"Few are agreeable in conversation, because each thinks more of what he intends to say than that of what others are saying, and listens no more when he himself has a chance to speak." - Francois de la Rochefoucauld

Intel Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, GeForce GTX 1050 4GB video, 6TB HDD space
Poser 12: Inches (Poser(PC) user since 1 and the floppies/manual to prove it!)

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.

"A lonely climber walks a tightrope to where dreams are born and never die!" - Billy Thorpe, song: Edge of Madness, album: East of Eden's Gate

Weapons of choice:

Poser Pro 2012, SR2, Paintshop Pro 8

 

 

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

> Quote - 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.

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.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

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.

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support

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

Download my free stuff here: http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?page=2&userid=323368

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.

 

Website: The 3D Scene - Returning Soon!

Twitter: Follow @the3dscene

YouTube Channel

--------------- A life?! Cool!! Where do I download one of those?---------------

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..............

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

*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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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?

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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?

Quote - 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?

Yes, I noticed errors and continue to pick up on some the more I look at it, but not at first glance.  The first time I saw it, my eyes didn't immediately relay a message to my brain telling me this was CG, unlike 99.99% of the realisitc renders I see every day.  It took me more than a few moments to realize this was not a real photograph, and I give the artist credit at being the first one to render a human figure, in a still image, that actually had me fooled for at least a few moments.  I've seen many architectural and automotive renders that were nearly indistinguishable from the real thing, but almost never a human figure.  Unlike the vast majority of renders, I believe this is one that could easily convince the average person into believing it's real.

Both my wife and brother, who have no CG experience, were totally convinced it was a photograph, and I had a hard time convincing them otherwise .  They never acted that way when I showed them any of my work, so I was a little insulted by that actually.

when i saw it I thought it was a cg figure pasted on the background of a real photo. that chair really gets me. the background looks great though once i was convinced that background was cg i see some of the texture "distress" has scaling issues. I am 65 and that is exactly how smooth my groin is! ;)

In photoshop I did a modification to remove the spotlight effect and even out lighting (old photo-offset techniques of layering inverted images to "fill flash" and some levels adjustment) inorder to see how the image looked. There was a lot of artificial grain apparent but still the results of the experiment are interesting.

Quote - the scaleof the character is way out when you compare her to the door on the left...she must be about 7 feet tall. .

Who knows? Maybe she's studying science at Dwarf's University, why not? LOL

Back to the crits.
I've been using Photoshop for about 10 years to a professional level and despite his work is a good work, I must admit that at first look that image seemed to show a bad usage of blurring, expecially concerning both hair's contour and face skin's itself. It seems to be an head which does not belong to that body, or viceversa. "Photomontage", what you call it.
Some minor mistakes like the toes (as already stated by many of you) but for the still, what doesn't convince me is how both head and body melts together.
As for the 3D, I can't spread anything than praises. Good work.

Though I have kudos for the amount of work involved in this image (just finally saw it, been offline for a while doing a lot of stuff), I can't exactly jump on the bandwagon of "the best CGI I've ever seen.".     Granted I cant "DO" better, but i have seen better.  

Again, great work, but some things on looking at it throw it off, and actually scream "not photograph" right off the bat.  These might be technical overlooked errors.  The chair in particular, i noticed right away.  the bottom is fine, very 3d, but teh back in which her hands rest on seems part of the wall and very flat.  Like that hand was "pasted" on a flat 2d image. I'm sure its not, just looks that way.

I have to agree, the head and body don't seem to match, as if two different images are there, and the CGI'ness really shows up past the waistline down.  The panty part doesnt seem as photo quality as the top of the outfit as well.

Again, maybe the voice of dissent in the crowd, and its sure better than any CGI I could do, but even on first quick glance it neither seemed a straight photo, nor straight CGI to my eyes.

My question is, what the features are that people respond to in in this image? There is always this debate as to whether attempts at "realistic" cg images should be photographic or not but for the time being I think that it makes sense for them to given there are no immersive media yet that I know of, all the images I see are photos, paintings, or drawings. I have never seen any image that approximates human vision even in cinema so it would make sense for cg images to simulate other media rather than natural vission.

What I call the "render-realism" of the no-post-work movement wherein every pore is sampled, textured and displaced reminds me of the hyper realism of Renaisance painting or 1970's representational minimalism and process painting which in art history class was described as a simulation of going over the entire scene with a magnifying glass from a scanning POV rather than replicating the distortion of focus of natural vision in a single point lensed POV.

Would some one isolate the factors in this image that lend it photographic credibility?

I come up with:

1. surface incident (degree of entropy on the textures)
2. the use of spotlight effect
3. the flattened contrast
4. the strong simulated chemical/pixel grain which seems more prounouced in the dark areas and less in the light areas as would occure with photographic media.

I did tests on the image removing certain factors which can not be posted here due to TOS but would any one volunteer to construct an original Poser scene and issolate and compound various factors demonstrated in this image to show what is going on here as they understand it?

Conceptually I have always wondered if the use of sampled textures is more compremising to the cg integrety of an image then aggresive post-work. People who disdain post-work seem to embrace hi-res photo textures as opposed to "hand painted" or procedural textures. I don't know what I think on that issue myself.

I think that the average non-CG-aware person would believe that this was an actual photograph.  Sure, 3D pros with 10+ years experience, or even advanced 3D amateurs might be able to immediately spot the fact that the image is CG.  However: I doubt that any but the most observant of non-CG types (which represents most of the human population) would be able to tell the difference.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Lee did post a "before postwork" and "after postwork" comparison. It added a lot to the realism effect. And... CGTalk thought enough of the image to present him with an award. He did good. ;)

scanmead, I know it is lazy of me to ask but would you give the link for that before/after... I have been trying to read through the threads to find the supporting images but only have found some.

Looking at his other work my question is why these independent modelers can get figures that look so much more realistic than those from the teams at DAZ and EF?

simple to answer..

they are not making a figure that has to be all things to all ppl (see poser figures +morph demands, where a figure is almost expected to be everything from a baby to an old crone and everything inbetween) and..thats about it really.

if you think about it, we put demands on the figures we use that defy logic. where it would be better to use a purpose built figure to be the old woman, (which would give far better results), we try to make a generic figure into that old woman... and expect that figure to also be the man, six armed thing over there, that tree and oh, can I find a morph to make it into a young perfect woman?

they can make a figure that just is.

:) It's the thread that refused to die,,, I should give a "kitty" a pet for that,,,*

Would some one isolate the factors in this image that lend it photographic credibility?
momodot, If you're asking me,,,

*One thing is; Poser does not blend mesh or texture in a render. What I mean is, the render bucket registers: face tex, face tex, Stop. Eye tex, eye tex, stop. Cornea tex, Stop...(I'm not a programmer)

I mean to say,,, there is no averaging between meshes or their textures. It goes Red, Red, Black(stop), White, White, White... There is no transitional Pink. Nature blends these details to our eye in the form of Dof, reflection, scatter, proximity shading(AO), shadows... to name a few. When 2 white boxes are put together, the line we (usually) see is grey, Not black. I see separate objects in equal resolution in most renders.  Poser and other apps need tons of info to get past this.
 
Some of the best parts of that render (to me) are the seamless blend of separate meshes into each other. Also its proper resolution. I mean,,, you cannot count the threads on her corset or strands of her hair at this focal distance. But it's there. Pointilism, Impressionism really played with this. Again, we forget how little we can actually focus on in real life. Renders freeze "real" life with everything in focus. True,, you can choose what to focus on but you loose an important element for realism.

The subject matter is counter-academia and this is what made it shine so much. Being human is important, too.  Skin is still one of the most difficult things to simulate. But once these little obstacles are surmounted, many avenues will open up for film, tv, gaming, hobbies and poserites (separate catagory).

Edit to add: This render was moved to the CG Choice Gallery. 60,000 views in a few days. Gotta love it