4 ms·

Imagine you are remaking Raise The Titanic. The original film had a very renowned detailed model 15m long and weighing 10 tons. It was quipped that it would h

Imagine you are remaking Raise The Titanic. The original film had a very renowned detailed model 15m long and weighing 10 tons. It was quipped that it would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic. Now imagine in your remake you choose to raise a virtual photo-realistic Titanic. Your artists and critics are not going to complain that it is too realistic. Realistic rendering is strived for even when the scene being rendered is conjured up by artists.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
Certainly. But the point is, if a scene is conjured up by artists, the material they work with -- the RGB textures they create, the specular maps, etc -- do not in any way match real life, or real objects. They make those textures with the goal of getting an engine to display results that look sufficiently good. That means if you're interested in creating a truly realistic CG video, you have no hope of succeeding if you use an art pipeline. If it's true that a truly realistic CG video will only be created by data that matches real life, then artists must not be allowed to conjure up the data that you use. The data has to come from real-life sources. There is a contradiction here, and I think it's worth accepting and embracing it. Once you accept that true realism isn't the goal, then you can focus on making CG look cool.
- vinkelhake 10y ago
  Physically Based Rendering[0] is big these days. Materials can be acquired using special scanners[1]. The result is that you can have a library of materials that behave in predictable ways in a wide variety of situations. Artists still have a lot of freedom, they can chose materials and change lighting, just like in a real photo shoot. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering [1] https://www.chaosgroup.com/vrscans https://www.chaosgroup.com/vrscans

sillysaurus3 10y ago

Certainly. But the point is, if a scene is conjured up by artists, the material they work with -- the RGB textures they create, the specular maps, etc -- do not in any way match real life, or real objects. They make those textures with the goal of getting an engine to display results that look sufficiently good. That means if you're interested in creating a truly realistic CG video, you have no hope of succeeding if you use an art pipeline. If it's true that a truly realistic CG video will only be created by data that matches real life, then artists must not be allowed to conjure up the data that you use. The data has to come from real-life sources. There is a contradiction here, and I think it's worth accepting and embracing it. Once you accept that true realism isn't the goal, then you can focus on making CG look cool.

vinkelhake 10y ago
Physically Based Rendering[0] is big these days. Materials can be acquired using special scanners[1]. The result is that you can have a library of materials that behave in predictable ways in a wide variety of situations. Artists still have a lot of freedom, they can chose materials and change lighting, just like in a real photo shoot. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering [1] https://www.chaosgroup.com/vrscans https://www.chaosgroup.com/vrscans