[quote=the article]Media sites like Huffington Post and Gizmodo were impressed with the advances in computer graphics, and posted stories like [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/27/all-these-photos-were-drawn-by-computers_n_6767354.html"]CGI Faces Are Officially As Real As Actual Human Faces[/URL] and [URL="http://sploid.gizmodo.com/i-cant-believe-these-hyper-real-pictures-are-completely-1688381311"]I Can’t Believe These Hyper-Real Pictures Are Completely CG and Not Real.[/URL]
...
OReilly’s original point was that the artists who make hyper-real computer graphics often conflate realism with quality. Intended as a commentary on the pursuit of photorealism in computer graphics, OReilly unintentionally exposed the mainstream media’s irrational fascination with hyper-realism too—not to mention their low standards in covering the computer graphics world. (To Gizmodo’s credit, they have retracted their story, while Thomas Tamblyn at the Huffington Post UK has not.)[/quote]
[URL="http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/david-oreilly-new-tumblr-showcases-hyper-real-cgi-advances-109772.html"]source[/URL]
[URL="http://hyperrealcg.tumblr.com/"][img]http://i.imgur.com/QmDqvvX.jpg[/img][/URL]
[quote=HuffPo]This incredible picture by Kim Laughton is a photo, except it's not, it's tireless hours of rendering all performed by the silicon chips inside his computer. It'll come as almost no surprise that the image took 24 hours to render.[/quote]
I knew it was not a photo! Also, he's ugly.
24 hours to render is waaaaaay too short for that level of detail.
Remember the large-scale scene in Frozen that had a shot of the entire ice castle? That was over 1 week on Pixar's render farm, and it's nowhere as detailed as this face.
Wait so is it or is it not CGI? The article says it isn't
[QUOTE=Benx303;47254206]I knew it was not a photo! [B]Also, he's ugly.[/b][/QUOTE]it is a real photo, of a real man with facial paralysis, what a nice thing to say about him
[QUOTE=redBadger;47254233]Wait so is it or is it not CGI? The article says it isn't[/QUOTE]
It isn't. The quote from Huffington Post is from before everything was revealed to be a hoax.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;47254231]24 hours to render is waaaaaay too short for that level of detail.
Remember the large-scale scene in Frozen that had a shot of the entire ice castle? That was over 1 week on Pixar's render farm, and it's nowhere as detailed as this face.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between rendering one picture and an entire animated sequence.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;47254231]24 hours to render is waaaaaay too short for that level of detail.
Remember the large-scale scene in Frozen that had a shot of the entire ice castle? That was over 1 week on Pixar's render farm, and it's nowhere as detailed as this face.[/QUOTE]
first of all frozen is disney and second of all like Schmaaa said theres a big difference between face and mountains
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;47254276]There's a difference between rendering one picture and an entire animated sequence.[/QUOTE]
A single frame of the scene. 132 hours to render.
[url]http://www.rotoscopers.com/2013/11/22/disneys-frozen-fun-facts-2/[/url]
[url]http://screeninvasion.com/2013/10/inside-walt-disney-animation-studios-frozen/[/url]
[editline]3rd March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47254326]first of all frozen is disney and second of all like Schmaaa said theres a big difference between face and mountains[/QUOTE]
Right, sorry, Disney. Pixar is still a part of disney though so... same difference?
Same difference would be if they were in the same building and borrowed shit back and forth
they aint doe
[QUOTE=Daemon White;47254384]A single frame of the scene. 132 hours to render.
[url]http://www.rotoscopers.com/2013/11/22/disneys-frozen-fun-facts-2/[/url]
[url]http://screeninvasion.com/2013/10/inside-walt-disney-animation-studios-frozen/[/url]
[editline]3rd March 2015[/editline]
Right, sorry, Disney. Pixar is still a part of disney though so... same difference?[/QUOTE]
You're insulting Pixar.
My point is:
[quote=Huffington Post]rendering all performed by the silicon chips inside his computer[/quote]
Silicon chips inside his computer = 1 computer. 1 computer at 24 hours for a highly detailed headmodel including hair (And that's a bitch to render)
Compared to the multiple machines that are inside a render farm, as in, more than 1 computer ([url=https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/conference/protected-files/lisa13_geibel_johnson_slides.pdf]30,000 cores (pdf document)[/url]).
Unless his computer is a supercomputer that operates on a similar amount of cores, my point stands that 24 hours is too short.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;47254231]24 hours to render is waaaaaay too short for that level of detail.
Remember the large-scale scene in Frozen that had a shot of the entire ice castle? That was over 1 week on Pixar's render farm, and it's nowhere as detailed as this face.[/QUOTE]
Nah. That castle had thousands of reflections, which is much more intensive than a face. Even a 4k render of something like this would probably not even take 24 hours. I am working on a dragon right now with skin shaders that includes sub surface scattering (light going through the skin, translucence effect) and it doesn't take nearly that long.
All a face is really is a really high resolution sculpt from Zbrush or something else, and then a couple fancy shaders / textures here and there. It isn't an easy feat art wise but rendering wise it isn't too crazy. As for the hair you can render that out fairly quickly if it's not animated and being simulated and stuff.
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;47254276]There's a difference between rendering one picture and an entire animated sequence.[/QUOTE]
And this is right. A sequence could be several hundred frames versus a single frame. That castle being built was a pretty long sequence too.
Alright, fine. Fair enough.
Still, we've reached a point where it is harder to tell if an image is CGI or not and that's really cool.
Still though, they posted this like it was a prank or something. There is CGI out there that is very very close to photo real. Not perfect, but very close.
[IMG]http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g79/465679/465679_1308423502_large.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/199846/199846_1156997804_large.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_1_24/Has-OTOY-Bridged-the-Gap-between-CGI-and-Reality/OTOY_WWhiteFinal_689.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_1_24/Has-OTOY-Bridged-the-Gap-between-CGI-and-Reality/OTOY_WWhiteDiffused_689.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=alexguydude;47254560]
[IMG]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_1_24/Has-OTOY-Bridged-the-Gap-between-CGI-and-Reality/OTOY_WWhiteFinal_689.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_1_24/Has-OTOY-Bridged-the-Gap-between-CGI-and-Reality/OTOY_WWhiteDiffused_689.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
funny you show him
[url]http://students.cse.tamu.edu/fuhaoshi/FacefromVideo/[/url]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsktl1vUzGg[/media]
[QUOTE=alexguydude;47254560]
[IMG]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_1_24/Has-OTOY-Bridged-the-Gap-between-CGI-and-Reality/OTOY_WWhiteDiffused_689.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
think they took "walter white" a bit too literally
If you take more than 24 hours to render and image that small and photographically distorted, you need more silicon chips in your computer
He was just posting random photos as "#hyperrealcg", making fun of how bland every "hyper realistic" CG image you see is and news sites didn't know he was being sarcastic.
[IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cUQPV_36--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/q0r2b8iwhvcacorotzth.png[/IMG]
I mean come on, you can see his fucking shadow holding his phone in this one.
[QUOTE=FelixDragon;47284353]He was just posting random photos as "#hyperrealcg", making fun of how bland every "hyper realistic" CG image you see is and news sites didn't know he was being sarcastic.
[IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cUQPV_36--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/q0r2b8iwhvcacorotzth.png[/IMG]
I mean come on, you can see his fucking shadow holding his phone in this one.[/QUOTE]
The 3D design dude clearly added it in for realizm man
Damn got excited when I've read about this first, now it just feels much further away from being able to shoot someone looking realistic in the face
[editline]9th March 2015[/editline]
wait I didn't mean it like that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.