| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2004 02:55:15 PM · #1 |
Did not believe my own eyes.
This is a computer generated image of a Sony DSC-F707.
It is not a picture, it is completely rendered. What an amazing job.
The only thing that is missing is the power light next to the main dial.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 02:57:17 PM · #2 |
Looks like a bad link Willem.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 03:01:06 PM · #3 |
| Link works okay for me. Amazing render indeed. It really shows off that fine line between the art we make with photos, and the art that is being created purely from bits. That line is blurring more all the time. I'd love to see the work of an artist who's mastered both sets of skills, and combined them. |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 03:14:18 PM · #4 |
Wow, i was fooled for a minute there also.
Simply Amazing! |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 03:38:55 PM · #5 |
That is one hell of a good job! The strap is real, though, and that does lend additional realism to the image. That would be undoubdedly more difficult to render.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 03:40:22 PM · #6 |
Amazing the only thing though is the zoom-focus ring doesn't look as real as it is in life. But other than that, WOW
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 03:50:59 PM · #7 |
I still can't access that page from my computer, not even the host website. Anyone else have that problem?
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 05:27:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I still can't access that page from my computer, not even the host website. Anyone else have that problem? |
Try pasting this into the URL space of your browser :
//www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=c4d6794e22aeed91fb9ffa56addd772b&threadid=143143&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 05:59:12 PM · #9 |
oh my god!! i still can't believe my eyes
I think it's a real photo..it's way too real to be rendered, sorry.
skepticz rule ;-p
Message edited by author 2004-05-11 18:07:51.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:07:27 PM · #10 |
Damnnnnnnnn...that's amazing.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:11:53 PM · #11 |
Best render job I've ever seen. I still don't believe it. Even Labuda's not that good.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:21:49 PM · #12 |
| Keep in mind that it is just the camera body that has been rendered and placed on top of another photograph.. the strap, etc are not rendered. It is a nice job though. |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:52:30 PM · #13 |
Awesome job!
So, here's the $64M question... If you had seen that particular render/photo in a challenge, would you have submitted a DQ request? Or would you have thought (not knowing different) it was a photo? |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 06:52:40 PM · #14 |
I don't know. I've seen some pretty realistically rendered stuff but that is so over the top realistic that I'm having a hard time believing it. If you go the other pages in the thread (page 6 I think) he has more of the detailed work but still. If he could get it that real, then why can't the multi-billion dollar digital rendering companies like Lucas Arts and Pixar get it that good? Their movies look pretty realistic but you can still tell it's fake most of the time.
If it's real the KUDOS to him!!! He's going to make a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 07:11:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by K-Rob:
If he could get it that real, then why can't the multi-billion dollar digital rendering companies like Lucas Arts and Pixar get it that good? Their movies look pretty realistic but you can still tell it's fake most of the time. |
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 07:20:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
Originally posted by K-Rob:
If he could get it that real, then why can't the multi-billion dollar digital rendering companies like Lucas Arts and Pixar get it that good? Their movies look pretty realistic but you can still tell it's fake most of the time. |
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents. |
Make it forever and then some......
That image is a blast ...
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:16:52 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents. |
It only took 50 mins to render which is pretty fast considering the detail.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:23:22 PM · #18 |
Wow...that's scary.
My husband has been a filmmaker and videographer for over 20 years, and this kind of rendering is really doing in, so to speak, the old-fashioned guys. But it's very cool. Amazing is a word that comes to mind.
I do have one stupid question...why not just take a picture of the camera instead of creating it from scratch? Wouldn't that be easier? Or is it the "quest?"
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:32:32 PM · #19 |
What would be involved in making an image like that? I have no clue. Only 50 minutes? I know Refracted is into modelling stuff like that.
Originally posted by Ram21:
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents. |
It only took 50 mins to render which is pretty fast considering the detail. |
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:35:30 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
What would be involved in making an image like that? I have no clue. Only 50 minutes? I know Refracted is into modelling stuff like that.
Originally posted by Ram21:
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents. |
It only took 50 mins to render which is pretty fast considering the detail. |
|
looooooong time to build the model (the mesh object, set the lighting, map textures...) and then 50 minutes for the computer to "paint" the scene according to the model
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:40:03 PM · #21 |
Thats amazing! Excellent CAD work! ... Kudos!
|
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:46:49 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by K-Rob:
If he could get it that real, then why can't the multi-billion dollar digital rendering companies like Lucas Arts and Pixar get it that good? Their movies look pretty realistic but you can still tell it's fake most of the time. |
the stuff that looks fictional will look semi fake 1/2 the time because ur brain tells you that something isn't right
the magic is the stuff that looks real because its stuff that you see every day and take for granted :)
i think ILM did a pretty damn good job with forest gump .. fight club etc..
Lucas Arts is the computer games side of things - ILM is the film side ;) |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 09:48:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
Originally posted by Jacko:
What would be involved in making an image like that? I have no clue. Only 50 minutes? I know Refracted is into modelling stuff like that.
Originally posted by Ram21:
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
This was a non-moving single image item. In order for a movie company to create such detailed and relaistic images for each individual frame it would take forever! *shrugs* That's my 2cents. |
It only took 50 mins to render which is pretty fast considering the detail. |
|
looooooong time to build the model (the mesh object, set the lighting, map textures...) and then 50 minutes for the computer to "paint" the scene according to the model |
Yeah the model is the hard part now. But once you get the model, you can position anywhere and render and shouldn't take that much longer.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 06:49:00 AM EDT.
