3 ms·
I think it's to the point now where the method of render isn't as critical -- many are capable of photoreal renders, but subtle details, like the way objects se
by asteli 9y ago
I think it's to the point now where the method of render isn't as critical -- many are capable of photoreal renders, but subtle details, like the way objects settle, or how rooms that are actually lived in are worn.
Bonus: I thought to compare the sterility of the bathroom pictured to an IKEA catalog, and thus looked one up. I couldn't tell whether the pictures were CGI or photographed, and did a little digging -- apparently 75%~ of IKEA's catalog is CGI.
- tialaramex 9y agoI've made the observation previously that it's harder to tell the difference between CGI and Fake Actual than between CGI and Real. The examples I gave previously are movies. The CGI of a bedroom in a movie doesn't look noticeably more fake _because_ all the actual "bedrooms" in movies are sets built by carpenters a few hours before filming. The "actual" bedroom lacks all the details of a real bedroom, so it doesn't surprise us when a CGI one does in a movie. It's interesting to compare Dogme 95 films, a movie made strictly to those rules is using real spaces not sets - among many other constraints, and so it looks more "real". Of course you can't make Iron Man 2 or The Fast and the Furious this way, but a lot of other stuff _could_ be done under these rules if we wanted it to look like the real world.