3 ms·

I love this idea. Quick question for you, is this scene real or rendered? https://imgur.com/a/MpKMo6j https://imgur.com/a/MpKMo6j If you think the answer is

I love this idea. Quick question for you, is this scene real or rendered? https://imgur.com/a/MpKMo6j https://imgur.com/a/MpKMo6j If you think the answer is obvious, then CGI definitely has more work to do. If not ... ??

bonoboTP 6y ago
Looks real. The dirt on the computer, the curls of the books and magazines and many other small details look very real. If this is CGI, then I'm impressed and want to see more from where this came from.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Alas, it's real. Agreed with you that I'd be super impressed if anyone could render at that quality, but I haven't seen it yet.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
In the version that is shrunk down to fit my browser, it kind of looks rendered, because you can't see the subtle details that another user mentioned. Dust, the curling of book pages, etc. But in the full version[0], it's clearly a photo. But it has been HDR'd which can sometimes create shading that gives a somewhat rendered look. [0]https://i.imgur.com/Wn2XgFg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Wn2XgFg.jpg
- nearbuy 6y ago
  The full version also has artifacts from the camera that ironically give it away as a real photo. At full resolution you see this characteristic noise plus noise-smoothing effect that cameras apply.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    That effect would be much easier to fake with a digital filter than rendering the entire complicated scene from scratch, though. Adding noise and noise-smoothing is simple. So if that's your heuristic, then you're gonna be fooled by digital renders that just incorporate that simple to implement effect.
    - nearbuy 6y ago
      Yeah, absolutely. It also shows though how you can easily accidentally bias a blind test. If an artist did manage to create a perfectly realistic render but forgot to add in one of the subtle unrealistic effects that cameras cause, people would be able to tell which images were photos. (Although, maybe you could argue that if the challenge is to make photorealistic renders rather than realistic renders, nailing the camera artifacts is part of the challenge.)
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yeah, the goal has to be photorealistic renders, because what would the control data for the test be if not photos? You can't test one image on a screen vs "what real life looks like". The one on the screen is obviously the rendered one then every time.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  It's not real multiple exposure HDR, it's just whatever default faux single exposure digital HDR the Pixel phone does. If it were real HDR the photo wouldn't be so blown out and over-exposed from the sunlight on the left side, particularly on the leaf.

bonoboTP 6y ago

Looks real. The dirt on the computer, the curls of the books and magazines and many other small details look very real. If this is CGI, then I'm impressed and want to see more from where this came from.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Alas, it's real. Agreed with you that I'd be super impressed if anyone could render at that quality, but I haven't seen it yet.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

In the version that is shrunk down to fit my browser, it kind of looks rendered, because you can't see the subtle details that another user mentioned. Dust, the curling of book pages, etc. But in the full version[0], it's clearly a photo. But it has been HDR'd which can sometimes create shading that gives a somewhat rendered look. [0]https://i.imgur.com/Wn2XgFg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Wn2XgFg.jpg

nearbuy 6y ago
The full version also has artifacts from the camera that ironically give it away as a real photo. At full resolution you see this characteristic noise plus noise-smoothing effect that cameras apply.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  That effect would be much easier to fake with a digital filter than rendering the entire complicated scene from scratch, though. Adding noise and noise-smoothing is simple. So if that's your heuristic, then you're gonna be fooled by digital renders that just incorporate that simple to implement effect.
  - nearbuy 6y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. It also shows though how you can easily accidentally bias a blind test. If an artist did manage to create a perfectly realistic render but forgot to add in one of the subtle unrealistic effects that cameras cause, people would be able to tell which images were photos. (Although, maybe you could argue that if the challenge is to make photorealistic renders rather than realistic renders, nailing the camera artifacts is part of the challenge.)
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Yeah, the goal has to be photorealistic renders, because what would the control data for the test be if not photos? You can't test one image on a screen vs "what real life looks like". The one on the screen is obviously the rendered one then every time.
CydeWeys 6y ago
It's not real multiple exposure HDR, it's just whatever default faux single exposure digital HDR the Pixel phone does. If it were real HDR the photo wouldn't be so blown out and over-exposed from the sunlight on the left side, particularly on the leaf.