What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
91 Comments
- linus7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40Original Image --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg
And for those who can't believe it.... Wireframe --> http://www.schmanke.com/images/buzzwireframe.jpg - Amishplumber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Here's just a little comparo pic I put together so u can see how good it really is.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Amishplumber/moonpics.jpg - ArcticCelt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Nice job, I also did the same but I resized the pics to make it easier to compare.
http://pages.infinit.net/holaweb/MOON_COMPARE.jpg - Elxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Heh, I opened this in a new tab and forgot about it for 30 minutes. Then I looked at it and just thought "Err, wow, a scan of LIFE, I've seen that photo billions of times...what a lame Digg story."
Then I realized it was CG. Amazing. - xioner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12SEE!!! We never really went to the moon!! It is all a cover-up!!!
;-)
A very nice job, I look forward to seeing such high quality in movies and (perhaps) real time in games some day.
Now to just get someone up there and take some more real pictures, preferably of the astronaut standing in fron of a half-completed moon base. - VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -1/+10that's super neat. now if all of you could just get a CG girlfriend you would all be in great shape.
- orangeRam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Where's all the camera's, studio lights and production staff in the reflection?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10wow, the fake one is better than the real one!
- isoprophlex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7wow.
Artist's Site: http://www.tredistudio.com/ - mailman-zero, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18I could do this better using MS Paint under Wine in Linux. And since it runs faster in Linux than it does natively, I could probably do it in half the time!
You call this TALENT!? P'shaw! - b3and1p, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Great job, I look forward to all the people saying they could do better with random program X in half the time.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6wow incredibly realistic, i thought it might be a touched up photo at first.. very believable texture
- mobbydick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6global illumination is so awesome, just look at the apparent fabric texture of his suit
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here's a super high resolution scan (1.17 MB) of the original photo (AS11-40-5903) from NASA.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903HR.jpg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Amazing. Probably one of the most impressive CG images I've ever seen.
- rmassie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6My only ciritcism is that the shadows on the moon are darker than they are on earth (outside). The old image has really dark shadows because that's how it really looks. It's hard to make out details in the moon's shadow.
Other than that minor point, the image is stunning. - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7proof the moon landing was faked...or not. thats stunning work! FOR SURE! infact, the CG one looks 10x better!
**EDIT** Just noticed xioner made the same joke as i lol. sorry about that - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I LOVE THE REFLECTIONS IN THE BUTTONS!!! AND THE WATCH!! Hahaha!!! Ahead of its time?!?!!?
Being a 3d artist my hat is off to him. Its not just about the technical aspect of it, its really in the subject matter. Beautifully done! - bugninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Makes me wonder why we believe anything we see.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow. That is the first CG image I've seen that really fools my eye into believing that it is a photograph.
- megaflops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried in Apollo 11. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface. The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications.
The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results.
The photographs of Apollo, today, three decades later, help us to relive the experience. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In the comparison images, notice how the real pic has much deeper shadows. That's because there is no atmosphere on the moon, making for much less ambient light. That is the easiest way to tell that the fake picture is fake: the shadows are too soft.
- spriggig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4More here about moon shadows, quotes from the astronauts and why they are so dark:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03jan_moonshadows.htm - Strangers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's in the original picture, just a bit darker.
Fantastic image. Dugg :) - sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And here is the original cover:
http://www.life.com/Life/covers/1969/cv081069.html - lacroixdp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Very nice! Only giveaway that's its CG is the watch on his right hand.
- soupyc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow...it's very hard to tell the difference there...INCREDIBLE!
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not much in the way of critique. The man being super clean with no dirt has been commented on already. I'm guesing they used an Ambient Occlusion shader. The folds of the clothing are picking up shadows very well. Another pass of Ambient Occlusion with low samples and high cast rate could have been used to dirty him up a bit... but there was probably a time constraint on this (this would have made for a lot of adjusting). Great work.
The light lighting the main man doesn't exactly match with the shadows cast of the people in the reflection of his helmet. This kind of stuff the artist looks at over and over and over and eventually must say "Done"... or get fired for having nothing turned in. If this was done over the course of a week (I really don't know)... it's great great work.
I'm suprised they used 3Ds Max. It probably took a lot longer then unless the person is very very fast. A lot of print work is done using Lightwave as it is very quick to get good enough results. (I'm talking set-up... not render). - beelz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8very good but wheres the dirt. to clean its the moon. digg for the skill
- jhuebel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That is an amazing CG rendering. It seems to be accurate to the finest detail. Well done!
- linus7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No...I think the only "kinda" fake looking part is the highlighted part!
--> http://www.schmanke.com/images/OnlyFakePart.jpg
(And the highlighted part is the original. I first darkened it all -100% and then brightened selection back to +100% ...equaling 0.) - paroxsitic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I first darkened it all -100% and then brightened selection back to 100% ...equaling 0" Actually is not the same image. Darkening and relighting images results in some data loss. A clear example of this would be darkening it all the way (-255 brightness) and try lighting it back up ( 255 brightness). You'll get nothing but white.
Here is a comparison of image you posted, and the real image without the data loss.
(The real example doesn't look as fake)
http://brianhare.com/datalosscomparsion.jpg - overaction, on 07/14/2009, -2/+6That is incredible! The helmet reflection is really amazing.
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Before anyone asks, the "MOM" stands for "MOMentary" as in a momentary switch.
- sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here is the largest image I could see, it is the most original version of the photo i could find. I like how the black bar has been added to all the versions we normally see. Also the tilt is still there.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903HR.jpg
And a facinating explanation is here do a search for "5903" it's near the bottom.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag36 - cryonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3great pic. Being a member of CGsociety, you will see stuff like this comes along quite often. But like all things one problem I have with this is the lack of realistic lighting (yes I know its good. good for on earth lighting. But not on the moon with no atmosphere). There’s too much blue in the ambient light. Look between the helmet and shoulder, too blue. On the moon there is no atmosphere to make light shift to blue. So the light would be pure sun light. So instead of being blue it should be yellow/orange like in the original photo. Also with the lack of atmosphere the Global Illumination would be less effective in the darker side. Light would only be reflected off the ground and parts of the suit. With no "Sky"; that’s a lot of ambient light that should be missing. I’m not saying the lighting is bad, placement with highlights and shadows are right, just the shadows need to be darker and more in contrast and highlights need to be less blue. Damn I hate my job, I see stupid subtle things like this all the time and I can’t help it.
- HabboX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3At top right, towards the light source, the sky is brighter than on the top left side, farther from the light source. This would indicate an atmosphere on the moon with light bending and/or bouncing off of suspended particles.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Stanley Kubrick would be salivating over this photo, he was a computer geek too.
- degree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4on the moon there is no such thing as dirt. we are far superior.
- Jrquinlisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Never mind. Me being stupid.
- Tito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There is to dirt. And it smells like gun powder.
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually is says "OFF/MAIN/MOM/TALK". Here's a close-up view:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/rcu02b.jpg - Mike.ohara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yea that bit ruined it for me... it looks good and all.. but there are a few blatently obvious texture screwups that just don't do it for me.
And Im sure he could match the lighting up closer then that... too clean...
overall 6/10 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, that's entirely computer generated? It makes me want to go to the moon.
- paroxsitic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I seriously doubt you'll be able to mess around with 3D modeling in the first class or two.
As far as I know, most of the artists are self taught with the programs first, then take classes when they want to expand their knowledge and know how - hiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Just noticed something about the photo and was wondering....why is he wearing a watch?"
To tell the time? : )
The wonderful Omega Speedmaster, as worn by me as I type, though mine hasn't been quite as far - lacroixdp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know there is a watch on the original; on the CG one it looks a little odd.
- MaxxDamage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to agree with the flag part, that stood out to me. The front of the flag has a smooth wavy look to it, like it was done with a filter.
- w3b4ddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's pretty impressive, this picture makes me want to enroll into a computer graphics class for next semester.
Where is CGI headed, are we going to be able to distinguish reality 20, 50 years down the road? - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's fecking impressive.. Too impressive, the original photo was talking a long time ago, the recreation of it looks far too clean/modern..
As a render, it's scarey, but as a recreation it's less good (Though a bit of fidling in Combustion or Photoshop would sort that)
Hm, an animation of it would be cool..
- Ben -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
