Even after my years of looking at professional renders and all, I am still amazed at how real this shit looks.
[editline]09:47PM[/editline]
After close inspection, the first render doesn't look all too realistic.
[editline]09:48PM[/editline]
Jesus fuck the water in the last render is PERFECT
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;18157378]
[media]http://i35.tinypic.com/51y8oi.jpg[/media]
[/QUOTE]
This is a picture of a house they are trying to develop that is 100% solar powered and made of fiberglass. It is a fake because I saw that exact same picture of their prototype on the science channel.:psyboom:
That house is a real object. :colbert:
Pretty impressive, but not the best renders I've seen. There are a lot of issues with the first image. The water has perfectly patterned waves, something totally unrealistic. The windows in the center reflect 6 people, while there's only a pair walking by. The wooden planks loose their realism (bump map) right on the border with what seems like granite. The second image is awesome, though the interior design guy should be shoot in the head :p
The third one is outstanding. It looks beautiful and it must've taken days to render.
Yes I like to bitch.
First two look very fake if you know what to look for (reflections and shadows are usually a give away).
The third is the best, and looks amazing...until you notice the obvious tiled textures and grainy lighting.
The fourth has unrealistic water physics (it should bead off), and unrealistically clean surfaces.
It's not so much a technological limitation to photorealism anymore as it is an artistic nightmare. For something to look realistic if must be full of "realistic" imperfections, and that takes ALOT of effort to create.
Looks good.
Please note though that these kinds of still-shot renders are anything but practical for useage in movies/games unless you want to spend many many hours rendering a single frame.
You can have crazy absurd amounts of detail and quality in any render with enough time. The thing is, most people and budgets don't have 100 hours to render out a small scene in this kind of quality.
Wait, you guys are joking right?
These can't be 100 percent digitally rendered... can they?
Right?
[img_thumb]http://i33.tinypic.com/2rw0qd1.jpg[/img_thumb]
Is it just me, or does it seem like there should be more light in the room, especially on the counters on the left?
First picture is obviously fake, look at the wooden/stone wall, notice how it just kind of ends and has no width seen through the glass?
The last picture is absolutely stunning though, hoyl fuck.
Video games, 8 years, no problem.
More like 6.
I don't believe OP has seen the movie Poseidon, Have you?
If you mean the one where the ship goes upsidedown or something?
Then i've seen it, why?
[editline]11:51AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=LlamaMaster;18175740]First two look very fake if you know what to look for (reflections and shadows are usually a give away).
The third is the best, and looks amazing...until you notice the obvious tiled textures and grainy lighting.
The fourth has unrealistic water physics (it should bead off), and unrealistically clean surfaces.
It's not so much a technological limitation to photorealism anymore as it is an artistic nightmare. For something to look realistic if must be full of "realistic" imperfections, and that takes ALOT of effort to create.[/QUOTE]
Yea, but,
1. Who would make a perfect render, when they could just go outside and take a photo of it? (unless it's far away or doesn't exist(which then makes it unrealistic, sorta))
2. The fourth one has amazing water considering todays technology with water. (even if it might only be a model)
3. Do you even know what you're talking about?
[editline]12:07PM[/editline]
I just got a mail telling me that Vue 8 is now released :smug:
That's awesome, to bad i can't afford it. (demo/trial version is being released at end of Q4 2009(sometime in december probably))
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;18181980]
1. Who would make a perfect render, when they could just go outside and take a photo of it? (unless it's far away or doesn't exist(which then makes it unrealistic, sorta))
2. The fourth one has amazing water considering todays technology with water. (even if it might only be a model)
3. Do you even know what you're talking about?
[/QUOTE]
1. Lol, are you serious? People aim for photorealism for the sake of photorealism.
2. It has fucking awful water. It's just a tube with overly smooth refraction and no attempt to create ripples. Go turn on a sink.
3. 5 Years with 3DS MAX says I know what I'm doing, you twit.
Have you ever seen ripples in a water jet?(not turned on fully, just a bit)
The picture is probably supposed to look clean.
I'm not even sure if they want it to look 100% realistic, do you?
[editline]05:24PM[/editline]
Why are we arguing about this anyways?
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;18184488]Why are we arguing about this anyways?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. :(
Let's stop.
We all know i'm right anyways...:rolleyes:
:smug:
Just kidding, we all know how that method ends like in movies
ITT: People don't know what reality looks like. There's only ripples in your sink water beam if your tap sucks.
A setting sun shining through a Window [i]is[/i] surprisingly dim.
I don't think Vue looks that convincing. Terragen 2 is where it's at for terrain.
[QUOTE=BmB;18202078]ITT: People don't know what reality looks like. There's only ripples in your sink water beam if your tap sucks.
A setting sun shining through a Window [i]is[/i] surprisingly dim.
I don't think Vue looks that convincing. Terragen 2 is where it's at for terrain.[/QUOTE]
This
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.