Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Very realistic CGI

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Very realistic CGI

#11

Post by Alexo »

baddox wrote: post #5

It's difficult to formalize what "realistic CGI" or even "CGI" means. Most of us probably have a loose definition that's something like "the rendered output of 3D models that looks like something familiar in the real world," but that's insufficient. One could take 100 bitmap frames of video from a camcorder, then use a computer to generate 100 identical or nearly identical bitmap frames. This would be realistic by de…

CG has always been and will always be a hack I think - debating the best CG is kind of like debating the 'most realistic miniature'. The more real elements you include (ie. real sunlight, real objects, photographed background plates) the less there is to offend your eye.

To me, the tools are getting so good (GI, HDRI lighting, MoCap) that 'seamless/not seamless' is soon going to be the only judging criteria. Of course along with visual aesthetic which will always occur in film whether you're using a physical camera or virtual.

Re: Very realistic CGI

#12

Post by defdac »

mattmanser wrote: post #8
Keyframe wrote: post #2

No. Most of the advancements in rendering today made possible even for relatively normal users to achieve realism ( ie. http://www.maxwellrender.com/ ). Most realistic CGI is the one I haven't seen.

That looks nowhere near as good as Roman's work. It doesn't look real, most of the renders they show are obviously CGI to my eye. If you're still doubting, just checkout Third and Seventh, it's amazing.

How do you feel about Vray then? http://www.vray.com/

Re: Very realistic CGI

#15

Post by thehodge »

I looked at the girl spinning around and was trying to look for errors but then the sony logo appeared... and I was looking at an advert... well played sony ;)

Re: Very realistic CGI

#16

Post by michael_nielsen »

The artist behind this, Alex Roman, has produced a 12-minute CG piece (the "Third and the Seventh", briefly mentioned in the article) that is absolutely amazing:

http://vimeo.com/7809605

He apparently quit his job and worked fulltime for a year to create it. It is, I think, the most amazing work of art I've seen created by an artist in my lifetime. I've watched it perhaps 20 times. (Sorry for the hype, I find it impossible to talk about this any other way.)

Re: Very realistic CGI

#17

Post by Keyframe »

mattmanser wrote: post #8
Keyframe wrote: post #2

No. Most of the advancements in rendering today made possible even for relatively normal users to achieve realism ( ie. http://www.maxwellrender.com/ ). Most realistic CGI is the one I haven't seen.

That looks nowhere near as good as Roman's work. It doesn't look real, most of the renders they show are obviously CGI to my eye. If you're still doubting, just checkout Third and Seventh, it's amazing.

I haven't said it doesn't take talent though, but it's easier to do than ever. Realistic stuff is being made each day by thousands of professionals in various studios around the world, most of which you don't even see because it's 'real'. What used to take a talent pool of ILM or BUF can today be done by a single person (rendering-wise). His work is great though, I wouldn't contest that!

Re: Very realistic CGI

#18

Post by Keyframe »

defdac wrote: post #12
mattmanser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks nowhere near as good as Roman's work. It doesn't look real, most of the renders they show are obviously CGI to my eye. If you're still doubting, just checkout Third and Seventh, it's amazing.

How do you feel about Vray then? http://www.vray.com/

Or Indigo http://www.indigorenderer.com/category/image-galleries/best-... and many others, you still need skill though.
Post reply on HN