-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
CGI Vs Real
- Thread starter mike
- Start date
Free episodes:
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
Real. Why? In a word: lighting. Many professional studios actually have people who's sole job is to construct lighting rigs for CGI because simulating realistic lighting accurately is damn difficult. Off the top of my head the elements in the photo that speak to me in that area would be things like the way the shadows fall on the ground, the reflected light on the lower halves of the mechs, tiny specular highlights of the dirt in the background, the bluish tint of the fill-in lighting (ie the sky) plus the overall depth-of-field of the photograph.
The only thing that might raise a flag to me is if this were two photos of the same model combined to make it look like two mechs instead of one. But that would be some damn clean masking to leave no artifacts.
So, I'm saying it's real. 95% certain.
The only thing that might raise a flag to me is if this were two photos of the same model combined to make it look like two mechs instead of one. But that would be some damn clean masking to leave no artifacts.
So, I'm saying it's real. 95% certain.
Jose Collado
Skilled Investigator
Lighting is a big player in CGI that most people either ignore or don't have the skill to master it effectively. Good CGI has all the natural imperfections accounted for. Bad CGI is often squeeky clean. In my opinion, if this is CGI then it looks really well done. I'm leaning toward it being real.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
My eyes tell me it's real.
dB
dB
The ground would be the most challenging. It would take a very good shader writer to make it look that real especially at close range. This is why you don't see a lot of natural phenomenon type of material viewed up close
The shadow detail of the ground including the specular highlights in the shadows are too good to be fake.
There is light wash and bounce inside the shadows as well as on the mech body parts that is very convincing. This can be replicated with radiosity type renderers but why would any one bother in shots like this.
Shadow has subtle blurring of edge detail the further away from the objects it gets.
While the mechs can be replicated to look very real including imperfections few modelers and texture painters would bother with such painstaking detail and nuances on such simplistic models that are obviously not built for feature length movies.
If the purpose of the shot was to make these toys look big then that is a whole other matter in which case you would have to fire the art director.
It's real.
The shadow detail of the ground including the specular highlights in the shadows are too good to be fake.
There is light wash and bounce inside the shadows as well as on the mech body parts that is very convincing. This can be replicated with radiosity type renderers but why would any one bother in shots like this.
Shadow has subtle blurring of edge detail the further away from the objects it gets.
While the mechs can be replicated to look very real including imperfections few modelers and texture painters would bother with such painstaking detail and nuances on such simplistic models that are obviously not built for feature length movies.
If the purpose of the shot was to make these toys look big then that is a whole other matter in which case you would have to fire the art director.
It's real.
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
That image is most likely real, but it can be nearly impossible to tell anymore with certain subjects because rendering technology is just getting so good. All the issues people raised above about specular subtleties, caustics, lighting nuances like bloom and accurate bokeh, the realistic ground plane etc. can all be easily handled by unbiased render engines like Maxwell or FryRender or even traditional biased engines like FinalRender or Brazil (my personal favorite becuase it meshes perfectly with 3DS MAx)
The only way to really tell on a lot of images is to get a hold of a full sized high quality version and examine it up close. Even then, tiny tell-tale signs can be covered by techniques such as sharpening an image, adding noise, then blurring it twice and then applying an unsharpen mask. That will add so much degredation to details and edge lines that an image which is properly built and textured will be impossible to spot as fake for all but a few subjects such as humans/animals and foliage. Everything else will be spot on, in the sense that you wouldn't have any reason to suspect it was CG unless someone actually says "hey this is fake" and then suddenly you rationalize to yourself why you think its obvious that it's not real ("Oh yea.. I can see that it looks fake")
here are some examples I pulled from the web that are all 100% CGI:
The only way to really tell on a lot of images is to get a hold of a full sized high quality version and examine it up close. Even then, tiny tell-tale signs can be covered by techniques such as sharpening an image, adding noise, then blurring it twice and then applying an unsharpen mask. That will add so much degredation to details and edge lines that an image which is properly built and textured will be impossible to spot as fake for all but a few subjects such as humans/animals and foliage. Everything else will be spot on, in the sense that you wouldn't have any reason to suspect it was CG unless someone actually says "hey this is fake" and then suddenly you rationalize to yourself why you think its obvious that it's not real ("Oh yea.. I can see that it looks fake")
here are some examples I pulled from the web that are all 100% CGI:
Jose Collado
Skilled Investigator
All CGI? Whoa! Nice
Hard object? A cake walk. Check these out and prepare to have your mind blown. All CG. If these don't a least creep you out then nothing will.
http://maxedwin.cgsociety.org/gallery/399499/
CGPortfolio - Max Wahyudi
http://fox.cgsociety.org/gallery/472843/
CGPortfolio - Piotr Fox Wysocki
http://mkor.cgsociety.org/gallery/219323/
CGPortfolio - Max Kor
http://misu.cgsociety.org/gallery/602760/
CGPortfolio - Mihai Anghelescu
http://sir3dmind.cgsociety.org/gallery/473076/
CGPortfolio - Eduardo Oliden
http://kuman.cgsociety.org/gallery/449514/
CGPortfolio - James Ku
http://www.stevengiesler.com/matrix.html
Steven Giesler
http://maxedwin.cgsociety.org/gallery/399499/
CGPortfolio - Max Wahyudi
http://fox.cgsociety.org/gallery/472843/
CGPortfolio - Piotr Fox Wysocki
http://mkor.cgsociety.org/gallery/219323/
CGPortfolio - Max Kor
http://misu.cgsociety.org/gallery/602760/
CGPortfolio - Mihai Anghelescu
http://sir3dmind.cgsociety.org/gallery/473076/
CGPortfolio - Eduardo Oliden
http://kuman.cgsociety.org/gallery/449514/
CGPortfolio - James Ku
http://www.stevengiesler.com/matrix.html
Steven Giesler
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
Astroboy said:
Yep all awesome work... but we still aren't there yet. Close but not quite. I think it's mainly an issue of cpu and RAM limitations. Generating enough particles for photoreal hair and then calculating all the translucent sub-surface scattering interactions will bring a machine to its knees. Skin needs multiple layers of shaders to look photo-real, and there is just such amazing nuance and subtle details in living organisms.
Add in actual movement and you quickly increase the issues geometrically - hundreds of muscles and tendons interacting and pulling on the skin, thousands of strands of hair glinting and swaying and interacting with each other. It's a mess. King Kong is the best example of a "difficult" animated mammal I've seen yet. Weta kicks all kinds of ass.
Our brains have evolved to quickly discern incrediblly subtle changes in faces so if it's not perfect you get than Uncanny Valley effect (Polar Express, Final Fantasy, Beowulf etc.)
Renderman and other studio-class renderers use all sorts of shortcuts and workarounds to deal with machine limitations, but at some point those issues will stop being roadblocks. I'm guessing in 5-8 years or so most of the final limitations will be overcome to the point that 99 percent of people will not be able to tell whats real and what isn't if a top-flight studio really puts in the time to do it right.
icculus
Paranormal Maven
I'm not an expert but I say they are real photos. The lights & shadows look consistent throughout the image specifically within all the details of the toy robots. The shadow of the robot on the ground is excellent and has a bit of refraction down by the front robot's left foot. Typically the "global illumination" setting used in most 3D programs introduce alot of grain and multiplied shadows. ( see Carat/Drone device from the chad documents for a great example of global illumination settings causing and funny shadows )
Oh and my 6 year old son says they are real too.
Oh and my 6 year old son says they are real too.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
I can only guess by looking? Can't ask where the photo came from, and who did it? 
At first I thought the robots looked fake, but as I looked more and more and noticed the lighting and shade, and couldn't put my finger on why I thought the robots were fake, leaned toward them being real.
I'm not an expert in cgi btw.
At first I thought the robots looked fake, but as I looked more and more and noticed the lighting and shade, and couldn't put my finger on why I thought the robots were fake, leaned toward them being real.
I'm not an expert in cgi btw.
Paralell101
Paranormal Novice
I'm not an expert either however if you take into consideration the recent advancements in robotics technology and the many problems associated its quite possible for the image to be a fake. I've also noticed these attributes in the image and it makes them seem so real but these to can be computer generated. Its very puzzling indeed.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
What does robotics tech have to do with this image?
There's nothing puzzling to me trained eye, these look real to me.
dB
There's nothing puzzling to me trained eye, these look real to me.
dB
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
So do we ever get an answer? Does the OP know and was testing us, or did they not know I wonder.
Paralell101
Paranormal Novice
It looks to be a fake if you look at the terrain in detail, If indedd it is a fake the scenery is quite good. Despite that i believe it's real