PDA

View Full Version : just a noob doubt(about a suprer realistic)



katsh
08-09-2006, 08:22 PM
i started to learn again a 3DCG recently.
and saw a several web site that is famous with CG. such as CGTalk or something.

when i saw very very real image that can say almost photo(photo in real),i was like "wtf is this!!" "how this possible??".
and 70% to 80% of them use 3dsmax and VRay combination(and photoshop).
i was impressed a few days....

BUT,
1 thinking was come up from inside of me.
if i use "Photo" as a texture,it not such a hard thing.even noob like me.
using photo as texture is not a cheat,but if 90% of pixel is photo,can we call it a Rendering? i think no.
So,i go those web site again,i saw those from different direction.i try to find very photo-real "MOVIE". i mean "NOT STILL".
cause i think it hard to make a movie with a photo.
theres NO PHOTOREALISTIC MOVIE. at least my reserch.

how do u think? or u know some photoreal movie?

T-Light
08-10-2006, 08:06 AM
katsh-

how do u think? or u know some photoreal movie?

Not sure I get your meaning, most realistic cgi contains some sort of photographic element, wether it be CGI over a real backdrop or manipulated photos within the textures. The buildings in the Spiderman movies for example are CGI but the textures used are extremely high resolution photos pieced together by the artists.

You can of course create photo realistic CGI without using photo's, it's just a lot more work with very little benefit.

Bog
08-10-2006, 09:01 AM
What T-Light said. Most photoreal or hyper-real still you've seen have been heavily retouched in Photoshop, or use photographic elements, whatever.

Actual animated photorealism is very rare to come by.

Penforhire
08-10-2006, 09:09 AM
There is so much more than just using a photographic texture involved in getting a photo-real render (otherwise I'd be a pro!). Even if you use a photo background it is not trivial to perfectly match the lighting (direction, color, source size/specularity) on a CG object in the scene. You have to match the film grain or digital noise in the photo versus object. And match depth of field. And shadow quality.

katsh
08-10-2006, 09:20 AM
katsh-


Not sure I get your meaning, most realistic cgi contains some sort of photographic element, wether it be CGI over a real backdrop or manipulated photos within the textures. The buildings in the Spiderman movies for example are CGI but the textures used are extremely high resolution photos pieced together by the artists.

You can of course create photo realistic CGI without using photo's, it's just a lot more work with very little benefit.
i really agree.

thx for reply T-Light.
arrg...im always worry about peoples can read my english.cant explain well...

i'll make it short.
1. "I THINK" very good photoreal CGI might made by "photo". not as part, as main texture.
2. if the CGI got big helpe by photo, the view angle is limited to.
for example,if rotate a camera ,the image got something strange.strange specular that always has same highlight same position,,,etc.

3. So, they cant be animation.i mean cant rotate objects,camera.cause of "2."

of course, i dont say they(author of that very good CGI) do like this.
BUT
4. those fu**in good CGI is all "still image". no animate.no move. no rotate.

this make me dought.

T-Light
08-10-2006, 03:33 PM
Katsh -

2. if the CGI got big helpe by photo, the view angle is limited to.
for example,if rotate a camera ,the image got something strange.strange specular that always has same highlight same position,,,etc.
Yup, If they only used a photo, that's exactly what you'd get. If the photo was a flat plaster wall (very little specular) then you could move the camera around a little without giving the game away. If however there was a window in the wall, then you'd need photo's of the surroundings to project on other objects to give an accurate reflection and accurate reflections for any CGI models in your scene. All of this would only work if your scene only included static lighting. If you wanted to take this further so you could relight your scene, you'd probably do something like this.

1) Take pictures of all the objects either in your scene or likely to be reflected in your scene (You need as flat a light source as possible (even grey cloud - no sun). Modify all photo's to even out any stray specular areas or shadows.
2) Create bump maps, specular maps and diffuse maps (from info in the photos if possible).
3) Light to suit using radiosity if at all possible. Use other photo's with the lighting your aiming for as reference

The biggest problem here is '2', not getting the specular and diffuse maps correct can ruin any effect of reality.

Of course, you'd only go through the steps above if absolutely neccessary. The easier way to handle CGI in a street scene would be to shoot your street scene with a high quality video/HD or film camera (depending on your budget), then motion map your CGI to your footage (This is how most SFX in movies are created - but not all) :)

katsh
08-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Actual animated photorealism is very rare to come by.
yeah!! that what i want to said.
and you've confirmed what I said.
i c..i c.....