What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
How Many Calories Are In Alcohol? view!
bing.com - Handy guidelines help you get your drink on and keep the weight off.
142 Comments
- sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16People have been doing interior renders of that quality for years, but still, it's a bit of talent to get that all right.
On the other hand, at least for me, being used to Vray in Max, those rendertimes suck, and there is still a lot of noise in those images, even after noise reduction in post (at least according to the posting in the CGtalk forum). On a similar computer (well, twice the ram, same processors) I render very detailed car interiors with global illumination, a variety of raytraced shadows, diffused raytraced reflections, and even sometimes displacement. I would imagine I tend to have less texturing going on in my scenes, but at up to 8 million polygons (sometimes more, that that gets painful) and rendering frequenty 8000 pixels wide (original rendersize for the images on CGtalk is unknown) I still get my renderings usually comfortably under 9 hours on a single computer.
Granted there are some differences in technique (I use less bounce calculations, since the car stuff is very stylized based on what the art directors want, rather than "photorealistic"), and I'm using optimized irradiance caches rather than a more brute force GI calculation, but unless those images were rendered MUCH bigger than they appear on the forum, I'd say that's a slllooowwww renderer.
Still, an artist can use what tools he or she wants, and that artist is doing good stuff with his.
Also, unless you realize that a lot of car images in advertisements and stuff are computer generated (less-so interiors than exteriors), then you're already being fooled. And some of the ones that are shot with cameras are so retouched (almost as much as celebrities on magazine covers!), that they're almost fakes too, just 2D photoshop paintings.
Horray for fakery!!! (it pays my bills!) - ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17they are computer generated, scroll down and the guy posted some screen shots of the wires/modeling in 3DSM.
- chewbaka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wow -38 diggs and not a single reader recognizes that it's a Jack Handey quote? ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Handy )
- diagonalfish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Insanely good. If he hadn't said it was computer, you'd never be able to tell. He even included proof.
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yeah. Wow. Absolutely amazing. The only one I have a problem is is the first one. The dog bowls in the far right look a bit more fake than the rest.
- koko775, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Read his post. Those, too, are renders. Freakin' amazing.
- KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ooooh, you all just got burned for not watching enough snl. Btw awesomely random quote.
- Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is it really a dupe? So what if there are multiple cg image articles? If the artist did a fantastic job on his or her works (which applies here ten thousand times), then they have just as much a right to be on the front page as an article that talks about how laughing can kill you.
- dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ALL of those pictures are renders. Each scene is rendered twice - one during the "day" with light comming through the windows, and one during the "night" where the only light source in the picture comes from lamps and/or a simulated camera flash.
Incredible renders. - derkampfe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I especially love the night render, very good quality.
- ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6its amazing that we are getting to a time in which we cant distinguish CGI's from real photos.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Particle effects for dust in the air would be nice. But if you've ever seen anything built brand new you'd realize things can be this clean in real life. It often is in cinema. It's not unrealistic for being this clean, but I suppose some sort of particles for things in the air near windows would have been a nifty thing.
Regardless, this is still great rendering and lighting. :) - m1th, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4CGSociety is an incredible site for CG enthusiasts... I check it almost everyday.
- MichaelW2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4its perfect for advertisement, where it is suppose to look clean.
- cyberbeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A bit too much artificial film grain for my tastes. I would like to see a clean high resolution ISO100 version of these renders.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Day time shots are good, but you can tell they are CG. The night ones, on the other hand, are nearly indistinguishable from real photos.
Wow. - Empyrean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My 3D teacher brought these in a while back to show us examples of how powerful 3D really is. Its amazing work and the renders are spectacular.
As to why they contain EXIF data, read the guys post:
"postwork in Phtotshop for final adjustments" (his spelling error, not mine ;))
As to why the guy is in the reflection, he could have taken an actual photo of the trashcan to use as a surface texture, but who really knows.
There are many things that make these appear as real as they do though, such as realstic lighting, random variations like clutter on the tabletops, and excellent modelling, scale, and proportin, which are just a few things that come together to fool the eye. - jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Are those shots with flashes, real pictures or renderings?
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+2Pfft, that's not real.. clearly photoshopped.
Wait a minute... - mattgilberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most illegally downloaded material on the net.
1. Next week's episode of "Lost"
2. Maxwell Render plugins - xgravix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One of the things that makes them so realistic-looking is the film grain (random color/luminosity variations). They look a lot like they were shot with a consumer-grade digicam. Most 3d renderings can be made to look a lot more "real" by just applying a film grain filter in photoshop. I agree, though, these ones are spectacular.
- gnalakalaciath5, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8awesome, the fact that computers can make graphics this real makes that "Are you living in a computer-simulation" article a bit more convincing...
- sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's mostly true that raytracing is the limiting factor in the speed of these renderings, yes. Polygon count does affect the raytrace acceleration grid, or binary space partition, or ray-tree, or whatever that particular developer calls their method of speeding up lookup of polygons for ray intersection testing. The more polygons, the bigger the database, and the slower the render, but the whole purpose of that database is to speed up lookup so it's organized and less related to polygon count. The time that polygon count REALLY kills your render is when you run out of RAM, either you start swapping, or your software crashes.
Also the software has really good methods of dropping quality for previews, rendertime can be frustratingly limiting for artists trying to tweak and perfect their shaders and lights in a scene. We've got a modest renderfarm at work, but that still only really helps for the big finals, or at least more serious test renders.
Curse Blinn's law! (as computing power increases, so do the demands of the artists, so rendertimes effectively stay the same) - ghelton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When your editing in a 3d program it doesn't show you that. While your working you are either looking at a version like the screenshot he shows in the comments section. Its just shows wireframes and color.
- paulrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow - April 2005. Thanks for the old news.
And yes, the guys that produce Maxwell are in serious hot water. I use XSI and they've advertised an XSI version for months and months. When I contacted them and asked about it they suggested I go ahead and pay for it now (vaporware) and then I could lock in the discount price.
It does some nice still renders, but until you've got 8 quad core opterons in your box, it's not ready for production work. - illu45, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow... very nice renders... Yes, its still a bit too "perfect", but nonetheless, best CG I've probably ever seen.
- mentor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, the most noticeable thing is blooming from the flash/flashlight. The question is...does this mean CG or RL?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2speaking of the distortion from the camera.... this 3D plugin actually makes it look like it was taken from a camera.... so these are almost imposible to distinguish between CG and real
- pianoman55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2holy crap.. that's it.. holy crap
- mwallace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://maxwellrender.com
That's the website that sells Maxwell Render, if anyone is interested in checking out more images like these. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3there are 1800 guests viewing the thread now. im suprised how fast it loads, cgsociety must have a great server farm.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, and is there an error in picture three? It seems that the leg of the left top-most chair is on the cushion of the left bottom-most chair. Are my eyes playing tricks on me or is that what is going on?
- darthsnoopy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I like this better than most, cause he shows what he models looked like in 3DS. 3DS is fine for pros and for people that have a ton of money to burn. For the thousands of dollars and the years in development that the main powerhouse software renderers/modelers/etc. have been around, I almost expect this.
I'm much more of a fan of the free utilities that are out there, such as Rhino(spline based), Daz3D, Blender (OSS,cross platform), the legendary POVRay (raytracing back on a 386..ahh, those were the days) , etc. The quality of renders coming from this free software is getting to be on par with the pros (see the gallery at: http://www.blender.org/cms/Gallery.55.0.html)
The pics in this article seem to be using a high amount of texture bump mapping to achieve these effects, which is nice...instead of using the power of the computer to just add pixels, the technology over the past few years is moving along to be smarter about how things are rendered.
Plug: To learn DAZ3D (mainly a figure modeling/animation system), there's a tutorial site up at: Downstairs Theater Project Page. For those aspiring to one day model/animate/render, this is a nice easy free way to start out. Happy modeling! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Only if video games looked so good...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can honesty say that this is the very first time in my life that I have ever, and i mean EVER been so convinced by 3D renders.
I loaded the page in a separate tab, and came back to it 10 mins later not remmebering what it was, and I thought to myself "why did I bring up these pictures of somebody's house?" It took me probably 5 mins before I could say with 100% conviction that they weren't real. and even then, it was only the shots of the wireframes that took me from 95% - 100%
Incredible - Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3youve got a point but look at the wood at the floor, WOW!
- krum0786, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's incredible! Two people releasing super-realistic pics on the sameday. I wonder if cgi graphics are gonna be even better than expected 5 years from now.
- Killerah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is unbelievable!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will probably (if it hasn't already) replace photographers for shop-at-home magazines, since they can make a perfect situation for their products to be seen in and be able to make everything look absolutely perfect.
Anyone else think so? - terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These have the cg look and did not look as good as others I have seen. I would not mistake these for reality.
- CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is from the comment section of this article that was posted earlier today: http://digg.com/design/3d_Render_of_bathroom_looks_too_real
You know, in case you missed it the first time around. - Aooogah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, this is old. I even replied to this thread in CGtalk 11 months ago. It is a very nice rendering system but very slow. We won't be seeing this kind of stuff in visual effects for another year or two I'd imagine, it just wouldn't be practical.
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're interested in the MAXWELL Render package you would be well advised to register on their site and review the discussion forums.
While it's true MAXWELL has not gone gold, they are having allot of difficulty with the final release which is now long overdue.
A little irritating since they started collecting cash with their marketing with. . . "Maxwell Render "Release candidate version" now for $495 and save 51% on the retail price!"
What is shown on their site is CG done with either in-house staff or those that have spent LONG hours working thru the bugs and shotcomings of the software.
almost a year ago. . . - MicHalpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have those chairs from ikea. thats awesome
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think there supposed to be... the front two point in the same direction too. I think its that way by design.
- Dustin3737, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing!
- superdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1:O insane! i honestly wouldn't know if that was real or not!
- ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they look great... i'd like 3D makers try to make those camera flash light effects in the objects... real images have those super-bright borders thanks to the flash... i wonder how 3D would look with them...
- snowthrower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those are absolutely amazing.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He botched the legs of the wooden desk in the last photo. The back legs are both pointing in the same direction.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is