cspear opened this issue on Sep 16, 2009 · 29 posts
cspear posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:16 AM
It's pretty good... but the most realistic ever???
Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)
PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres
Adobe CC 2017
Sa_raneth posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:24 AM
looks pretty good to me but needs something
hborre posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:30 AM
At a quick glance....convincing!
benney posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:41 AM
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.
ghonma posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:47 AM
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:
Lucifer_The_Dark posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 8:04 AM
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.
Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1
Yarivt posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 8:14 AM
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.
Sa_raneth posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 8:36 AM
skintone shadow and depth i think could use some touch up may hap my eyes aint all that great but
dlfurman posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 1:41 PM
IIRC, from CGTALK there was that psuedo-Polaroid image of a woman wearing pantyhose in some guys' room, that looked very very realistic.
"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!)
Fazzel posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 1:58 PM
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.
Acadia posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 2:01 PM
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.
"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
ice-boy posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 2:14 PM
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.
wolf359 posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 2:53 PM
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
TrekkieGrrrl posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 2:55 PM
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.
FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.
Miss Nancy posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 2:58 PM
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.
ima70 posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:48 PM
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.
replicand posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 7:57 PM
Attached Link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817
First one would be convincing but as mentioned there's something unnatural about the smile.No comment on the child.
I third the vote for the polaroid.
WandW posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 8:12 PM
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 Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."ghonma posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 10:17 PM
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.
Daymond42 posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 11:28 PM
If I had the link to it, I'd point to the CG version of Morgan Freeman. That still blows my mind.
Currently using Poser Pro 2012 (Display Units = feet)
AMD Phenom II 3.2ghz (6 cores)
8gb RAM
Windows 10 Pro 64bit
vincebagna posted Wed, 16 September 2009 at 11:49 PM
Attached Link: http://www.tkio.net
I love the work of Jacques Defontaine. Here are three pics from him made in Modo i consider in the top:Believable3D posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 12:39 AM
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.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
R_Hatch posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 3:22 AM
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)
Anthanasius posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 5:19 AM
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 ...
Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site
Anthanasius posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 5:24 AM
Quote - Believable3D : Hair is usually one of the giveaways.
Mace Windu dont have this problem :-)))
Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site
Anthanasius posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 5:33 AM
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 ...
Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site
ghonma posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 5:42 AM
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.
bevans84 posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 8:20 AM
:-)
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.
raven posted Thu, 17 September 2009 at 1:03 PM
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