PDA

View Full Version : Guess render VS photo...some terrain part renders..



prometheus
12-17-2016, 04:44 AM
Which part of the image is a photo and which is a render? taken from a vulcanic part of a beach in australia.

https://www.creativetools.se/blog_static/media/41801_quixel-megascans-renderat-med-redshift.jpg

KurtF
12-17-2016, 03:40 PM
Damn. I guess it's fifty fifty. That's a great render. I'm going for the left image as a render. The fill light looks a bit strong.

bazsa73
12-17-2016, 03:57 PM
I don't know man. Way too difficult.

spherical
12-17-2016, 05:52 PM
I'm going with left is photograph, because it's soft in places.

prometheus
12-17-2016, 06:45 PM
Damn. I guess it's fifty fifty. That's a great render. I'm going for the left image as a render. The fill light looks a bit strong.

I guessed the left image as a photo and the right as a render..and some of my reflections was this..

from my observations in real life..Mostly when the sun is hitting ground and terrain at that level, the ground becomes very bright in some places ..to the point towards almost whit, as it is in the left image, In the right image you got more of a yellow tone, and lacking the special brightness.

the left image shadows, are also softer Even with the hard shadows, and those shadows also is a bit not so dark as the right image is, so that is probably also why I guessed the left image as a photo.

And finally, on the contrary to what you thought about fill lights, In real life that can be very strong and lighten up the area, depending on how the atmosphere is ofcourse and at what pitch the sun is at, in this case the sun seems to be quite abit high in the horison, which should mean mostly that it also would be illuminated ala radiosity style quite a bit, so thus the right image have to little of that.

And to sum it up, ..the right image is the render.

spherical
12-17-2016, 07:38 PM
YES! What do I win? :)

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 07:39 PM
Why don't you show the page source? I guessed correctly by the way, based on nothing.

spherical
12-17-2016, 07:50 PM
Heh, so it's 50/50 luck of the draw? If he provided a link, everyone would get it right.

prometheus
12-18-2016, 06:14 AM
YES! What do I win? :)

quixel megascan suite ...or a trip to the very same australian beach the images are created from perhaps, just and Idea:)


Why don't you show the page source? I guessed correctly by the way, based on nothing.

Whatīs the matter with not trusting my words nowadays :) No one asked...Until now, and so you just guessed and shot from the hip based on nothing? thatīs not the way to analyze things, you need criteria when analyzing.
:D
https://blog.megascans.se/2016/11/23/creating-photoreal-graphics-with-megascans-and-gpu-rendering/

The rendered image was created with the help of quixel megascan, and the redshift 2.0 render.

djwaterman
12-18-2016, 08:10 AM
Thanks, the main thing was that the sized down version you posted pretty much made it impossible to credibly make any judgments so I figured the original source might have larger images.

prometheus
12-18-2016, 08:32 AM
Thanks, the main thing was that the sized down version you posted pretty much made it impossible to credibly make any judgments so I figured the original source might have larger images.

Yep..I should have posted the original link to that site, somehow I just quickly read it from a swedish site which had it resized.

I guess things like photogrammetry and quixels megascan stuff is something that propably will be a bit of a game changer VS the generic artificial approach in the near future, nothing beats the real thing ..it just needs more time to gather
a huge library of all kinds of natural surroundings, generic stuff may come in handy when you do not have what you want, or if the pack library is too expensive perhaps..and for more artificial alien or fantasy stuff.

I wonder if the investment in learning how to sculpt terrain and rocks etc is something that very soon may be obsolete when we have such great packs of real scans available much more in the future.

Michael

prometheus
12-18-2016, 08:36 AM
In this other sample, I could spot the top image directly as a photo and the one below as a render, the first thing that hit me was the lack of proper grass shadow/contrast in the rendered image compared to the photo...
And the same here as in the other sample, some small part on the rock is hit brightly with the sun, where the bottom part is still in a yellow orange tone when the sun hits, generally as I have discovered in real life observations on ground and terrain areas hit by the sun, the colors are often washed away, but that isnīt happening in the lower sample.

The global illumination do not live and affect the deep crevices in the rendered image either, they are almost full black, while in the photo there are unlimited bounces in the real world..penetrating at least a bit in the crevices, I mean itīs good, and itīs little difference, itīs subtle but it is there.


https://blog.megascans.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/lava_split-1.jpg