3 ms·
Bah, yet another "can you spot the CGI" test. I've never seen one that wasn't badly imbalanced in favor of CGI, by using tiny (400x300) images.
by sbierwagen 14y ago
Bah, yet another "can you spot the CGI" test. I've never seen one that wasn't badly imbalanced in favor of CGI, by using tiny (400x300) images.
- panacea 14y agoI got 4/5 (and the one I got wrong was the one I was most unsure about). Even with the small nature of these images, there's certain things that stood out as either not worth the hassle to get right in 3D for a catalogue (too naturally imperfect or detailed), and others where it looked like it would take way more time to make realistically in 3D instead of just taking a photo. Some of the lighting effects were pretty poor too.
- timdorr 14y agoSupposedly, this should be the updated 2013 calendar: http://onlinecatalog.ikea-usa.com/US/en/IKEA_Catalog/ http://onlinecatalog.ikea-usa.com/US/en/IKEA_Catalog/ Either the CGI is really good, or maybe it's for the next 2013 catalog.
- terhechte 14y agoI got all of them right. I think the 3D ones are still identifiable easily. Though I've do admit I do a lot of 3D work in Blender3D, so I may just have an eye for when it looks to perfect.