If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Images so real you wouldn't believe they're just renderings   (gizmodo.com) divider line 145
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

15900 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jul 2013 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-23 12:04:06 PM
Those are actually quite terrifying.
 
2013-07-23 12:13:22 PM
Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.
 
2013-07-23 12:15:30 PM
Neat. When will we get to the point where these folks who are really good at hyperrealistic renderings actually DO something with them?
 
2013-07-23 12:34:51 PM
So it took them hours/days to do what I could do in 5 minutes with my iPhone and the instagram app. Real impressive.

/I'm totally kidding. That's insane!
 
2013-07-23 12:59:37 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Neat. When will we get to the point where these folks who are really good at hyperrealistic renderings actually DO something with them?


They could totally dominate the Fark Photoshop Contests.
 
2013-07-23 01:42:12 PM

flucto: Those are actually quite terrifying.


The scary thing is that the line between fantasy and reality is becoming really difficult to detect.  I had a student this week who was really upset that I wouldn't let her write her paper for physical anthropology on mermaids.  She had seen a "documentary" on Animal Planet and was so completely fascinated "to find out that they're real after all!"  (She actually cried when I told her it was a hoax.)

I'm a little bit nervous about how this is going to play out.  People can't make good decisions if they can't tell what's real and what isn't.
 
2013-07-23 01:53:12 PM

FloydA: I'm a little bit nervous about how this is going to play out. People can't make good decisions if they can't tell what's real and what isn't.


They already can't tell the difference. Now imagine a world with photo realistic images of candidate X saving the plane from giant carnivorous flying wombats. "I seent a pic-chur of him a-doin it Skeeter, don't go a-tellin me he's not the man to lead us out of this wombat emergency" "Yeah, but I seent a pichur a him a-bitin the heads offen babies at the quickie-K. I SEENT THAT"
 
2013-07-23 01:55:29 PM

FloydA: People can't make good decisions if they can't tell what's real and what isn't.


On the other hand, no matter how well someone renders a mermaid on TV, I won't suddenly believe they exist.

Honestly, a certain amount of the population has always believed in stuff that isn't real.  I don't think that evidence or appearance of evidence will make much of a difference there.
 
2013-07-23 02:05:56 PM

FloydA: flucto: Those are actually quite terrifying.

The scary thing is that the line between fantasy and reality is becoming really difficult to detect.  I had a student this week who was really upset that I wouldn't let her write her paper for physical anthropology on mermaids.  She had seen a "documentary" on Animal Planet and was so completely fascinated "to find out that they're real after all!"  (She actually cried when I told her it was a hoax.)

I'm a little bit nervous about how this is going to play out.  People can't make good decisions if they can't tell what's real and what isn't.


I was talking with a friend that saw that and he started trying to convince they were real. I listened for a couple minutes but then was like "I need to get another beer." and got up from the conversation.
 
2013-07-23 02:09:31 PM
All I want to know is when this level of realism will be available in my video games. Please and thank you.
 
2013-07-23 02:16:25 PM
Looks like I can now get a picture of my Canadian girlfriend.
 
2013-07-23 02:16:33 PM
The garden one is the best for realism imo.
 
2013-07-23 02:16:35 PM
At a certain point though, aren't you just imitating something in real life with a greater level of detail, using the real-life thing to provide you with said detail?

Maybe what I'm getting at is that it still seems really brute-force. I'd be more impressed by some kind of AI that can whip stuff together using found images and footage, rather than some guy sitting at Maya for hours.
 
2013-07-23 02:20:21 PM
If you look really closely, you can tell that they're... Wait a minute... o.O
 
kab
2013-07-23 02:20:47 PM
The tractor and bridge scenes have some giveaways.

/they're all light years ahead of what I can do, so....
 
2013-07-23 02:28:32 PM
Ok, those are impressive.
 
2013-07-23 02:30:40 PM
The metal on the tractor isn't quite right. Painted metal is harder to make photorealistic than you'd think.
 
2013-07-23 02:35:10 PM
I can't tell by the pixels.
 
2013-07-23 02:36:28 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The metal on the tractor isn't quite right. Painted metal is harder to make photorealistic than you'd think.


Getting the grunge is the hardest part.

/slowly working on a nightclub in Revit that's as close to photorealistic as the software allows
 
2013-07-23 02:40:55 PM
It's already painfully easy to manipulate actual photos to show untruths so this tech isn't bringing anything new to the table in terms of deception.  It's just really cool.
 
2013-07-23 02:44:04 PM
On the typewriter one, why "CORONA"?    Smith-Corona, typewriter manufacturer?
 
2013-07-23 02:44:13 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.


We're getting close. Give it 5 years, there will be sufficient consumer-grade hardware to do a scene like that at full gaming fps. 5 years after that, everyone's computer will more or less be able to do it.

That is, assuming we don't hit a brick wall in terms of transistor design sometime in the next few years. If we do, then it's up to the quantum computer people to make it happen, and it's anybody's guess (or, technically, everybody's guess simultaneously) as to how that will pan out.
 
2013-07-23 02:47:34 PM
i.imgur.com

One of my latest preliminary renderings.  It was done as a test of the light levels.  They're right on the money.  Now all I need is the assorted crap and junk of an outside storage room behind a seedy bar
 
2013-07-23 02:48:39 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: TuteTibiImperes: Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.

We're getting close. Give it 5 years, there will be sufficient consumer-grade hardware to do a scene like that at full gaming fps. 5 years after that, everyone's computer will more or less be able to do it.

That is, assuming we don't hit a brick wall in terms of transistor design sometime in the next few years. If we do, then it's up to the quantum computer people to make it happen, and it's anybody's guess (or, technically, everybody's guess simultaneously) as to how that will pan out.


 The trick, as it turns out, is getting a AAA developer to jump ship from rasterization to ray-tracing, knowing the hardware support is very limited.  Gone are the days where a publisher will OK a project on the grounds of "Awesome graphics"
 
2013-07-23 02:48:59 PM
I don't know what it is but the one with the two airplanes does not look real to me, I think I would have known it was "fake" even without the article saying so. The rest look so real to me that I almost think the article is a hoax.
 
2013-07-23 02:50:06 PM

theresnothinglft: The garden one is the best for realism imo.


Agreed. I kept looking at that one for some flaw to give it away. The bridge and tractor for example are a little too soft, and the tractor also looks almost cel-shaded. Love the link, impressive stuff.

TuteTibiImperes: Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.


Each of these probably took days to render. It depends on a lot of things, drawing type, size of finished image, computer/GPU power, etc. 

To get something like this to real-time render you would need a supercomputer.
As an example, the tractor image is 21.56 MILLION polygons. The GeForce Titan can render about 10 million polygons a second, so you would first have to double the polygons per second, times 24 seconds (minimum frame rate for animation), that for one scene. So realistically you would need 48 $1000 GPU's to render that in real-time (as a minimum, roughly). This is because SLi or even parallel processing computers do not get exponential power increases for each additional computer or card.
 
2013-07-23 02:51:31 PM
They all look good, but the tractor didn't quite pass. I immediately thought of HL2 for some reason.
 
2013-07-23 02:55:03 PM
ikanreed: The trick, as it turns out, is getting a AAA developer to jump ship from rasterization to ray-tracing, knowing the hardware support is very limited.  Gone are the days where a publisher will OK a project on the grounds of "Awesome graphics"

The trick to that is doing it first as an indie developer, make people lose their shiat, and then have all the major studios copy you.
 
2013-07-23 02:55:39 PM

FloydA: flucto: Those are actually quite terrifying.

The scary thing is that the line between fantasy and reality is becoming really difficult to detect.  I had a student this week who was really upset that I wouldn't let her write her paper for physical anthropology on mermaids.  She had seen a "documentary" on Animal Planet and was so completely fascinated "to find out that they're real after all!"  (She actually cried when I told her it was a hoax.)

I'm a little bit nervous about how this is going to play out.  People can't make good decisions if they can't tell what's real and what isn't.


Wait til she finds out about the Bible.
 
2013-07-23 02:59:23 PM
While agree the garden is great expand the photo and look at the garden hose and the street light. Those give it away somewhat but when you consider it's a still from a video then it is about a million times more impressive.
 
2013-07-23 03:03:59 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Neat. When will we get to the point where these folks who are really good at hyperrealistic renderings actually DO something with them?


They actually did "DO" something with them. What the fark do you want, full renderings of the inside of Subby's mom's va-jay-jay?
 
2013-07-23 03:06:44 PM
Those are pretty good, not at all easy to detect, except for  Under The Southern Highway . That one looks like a 3D rendering, a little too polished to be real, I guess. It used to be easy because at the beginning they didn't really have depth of field, everything was in focus. That got fixed awhile back, and people have stopped going with plastic, glossy textures, which helps. The "dry", non shiny surfaces on the bird and the raspberries are what really blew me away.
 
2013-07-23 03:07:44 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: TuteTibiImperes: Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.

We're getting close. Give it 5 years, there will be sufficient consumer-grade hardware to do a scene like that at full gaming fps. 5 years after that, everyone's computer will more or less be able to do it.

That is, assuming we don't hit a brick wall in terms of transistor design sometime in the next few years. If we do, then it's up to the quantum computer people to make it happen, and it's anybody's guess (or, technically, everybody's guess simultaneously) as to how that will pan out.


There are a few other catches:
1.  While Occulus Rift is 1920x1080, it has such an enormous field of view that you will want to crank it up some more.  More resolution means more time (and more time for the artists creating every last surface and texture).
2.  Never mind the GPU, how are you going to fill something the size of Skyrim of GTA San Andreas with that level of detail.
3.  You will have to go to ray tracing.  NOTE: ray tracing will actually give less photorealism than most of these pictures (I think slapping a few custom shaders should make up the differnce).  The important thing is that doing it all with shaders and without ray tracing just takes too long for the shader writers to complete (more an issue with money than time).  So expect to give up primarily using shading and switching to ray tracing + shading at a fairly significant computing cost.
4.  Moore's corellaries are dying (the law is still truckin).  Moore stated in 1965 that you could double the number of transistors on a chip every two years.  That is still going strong (SSDs keep growing).  The kicker is that transistors aren't getting much more efficient, and having twice as many switch at the same time will use (nearly) twice as much power.  GPUs are already getting too hot and sucking too much power.  This makes cranking up the GPU power tricky.
 
2013-07-23 03:07:58 PM

phimuskapsi: theresnothinglft: The garden one is the best for realism imo.

Agreed. I kept looking at that one for some flaw to give it away. The bridge and tractor for example are a little too soft, and the tractor also looks almost cel-shaded. Love the link, impressive stuff.

TuteTibiImperes: Wow.  I wonder how long each one of those took to render, and how long it will be before computer hardware has advanced to the point that that kind of thing can be rendered in real time.

Each of these probably took days to render. It depends on a lot of things, drawing type, size of finished image, computer/GPU power, etc. 

To get something like this to real-time render you would need a supercomputer.
As an example, the tractor image is 21.56 MILLION polygons. The GeForce Titan can render about 10 million polygons a second, so you would first have to double the polygons per second, times 24 seconds (minimum frame rate for animation), that for one scene. So realistically you would need 48 $1000 GPU's to render that in real-time (as a minimum, roughly). This is because SLi or even parallel processing computers do not get exponential power increases for each additional computer or card.


That's neat.  These still look better than what Pixar or Dreamworks put out though, although they aren't necessarily going for a photorealistic style.  It would be cool if someone could produce an entire movie with each frame rendered to that level of quality.

I remember seeing Final Fantasy The Spirits Within when it came out, and I was blown away by how realistic it looked.  Now that I look back at screen grabs, it's obvious that it wasn't, but at the time it was breathtaking.  Now, you could probably do this in real time on consumer level hardware:

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-23 03:10:07 PM

theresnothinglft: The garden one is the best for realism imo.


It truly looks like someone was trying to photograph their garden and hit the button too soon. It's perfect in its attempt at portraying reality.
 
2013-07-23 03:13:59 PM

Smeggy Smurf


One of my latest preliminary renderings. It was done as a test of the light levels. They're right on the money. Now all I need is the assorted crap and junk of an outside storage room behind a seedy bar


How about a latch or something to keep the doors shut? :-)
 
2013-07-23 03:14:08 PM

Mikey1969: Those are pretty good, not at all easy to detect, except for  Under The Southern Highway . That one looks like a 3D rendering, a little too polished to be real, I guess. It used to be easy because at the beginning they didn't really have depth of field, everything was in focus. That got fixed awhile back, and people have stopped going with plastic, glossy textures, which helps. The "dry", non shiny surfaces on the bird and the raspberries are what really blew me away.


It's the areas that look 'too perfect' that give some of them away.  Like on the bird how the feathers by the eyes aren't matted or by moisture or eye-funk, and the lack of any moisture along the feathers further back.  With the Southern Highway the cobblestones seem to give it away to me, even though they're broken in places, they don't look worn and broken in a realistic way.  In the Tractor image the way the light and shadows play looking through multiple windows doesn't look quite right.

On the other hand, the Garden, Typewriter, Berries, and Airplane images look just like photographs.
 
2013-07-23 03:15:02 PM
The tractor doesn't look right.

The garden shot is kinda scary.
 
2013-07-23 03:15:59 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Neat. When will we get to the point where these folks who are really good at hyperrealistic renderings actually DO something with them?


When cameras no longer work.
 
2013-07-23 03:17:08 PM

meat0918: The tractor doesn't look right.

The garden shot is kinda scary.


Too much light on things that are in shadow, like the tire treads.
 
2013-07-23 03:20:18 PM

Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: The tractor doesn't look right.

The garden shot is kinda scary.

Too much light on things that are in shadow, like the tire treads.


The blue of the tractor threw me too.  I expect tractors to be that International Red or John Deere green or even Caterpillar yellow, but that's just my American bias coloring my perception.
 
2013-07-23 03:23:46 PM

meat0918: Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: The tractor doesn't look right.

The garden shot is kinda scary.

Too much light on things that are in shadow, like the tire treads.

The blue of the tractor threw me too.  I expect tractors to be that International Red or John Deere green or even Caterpillar yellow, but that's just my American bias coloring my perception.


Ford agricultural equipment was often blue.  New Holland is typically blue.
 
2013-07-23 03:24:32 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: Smeggy Smurf

One of my latest preliminary renderings. It was done as a test of the light levels. They're right on the money. Now all I need is the assorted crap and junk of an outside storage room behind a seedy bar


How about a latch or something to keep the doors shut? :-)


Yeah...  I've been having a hard time getting the parameters in the family to get links to follow a 3D line.  Until then, more trial and error.  Mostly error
 
2013-07-23 03:24:46 PM

js34603: All I want to know is when this level of realism will be available in my video games. Please and thank you.


never ...as long as we stick to traditional ray casting
 
2013-07-23 03:26:13 PM
TuteTibiImperes: It's the areas that look 'too perfect' that give some of them away.  Like on the bird how the feathers by the eyes aren't matted or by moisture or eye-funk, and the lack of any moisture along the feathers further back.  With the Southern Highway the cobblestones seem to give it away to me, even though they're broken in places, they don't look worn and broken in a realistic way.  In the Tractor image the way the light and shadows play looking through multiple windows doesn't look quite right.

On the other hand, the Garden, Typewriter, Berries, and Airplane images look just like photographs.


Yeah, eye-gunk would help. I probably wouldn't peg on that right away though... The tractor looks like it has weird lighting because of a Photoshop filter to me(And not the usual "let's slap a filter on everything, I would think it still looked good), so I would expect some of the lighting to look weird.

And yeah, it might be the cobblestones in the Southern Highway one, there's something, and I'm just not seeing it for sure, but it might be that. It's hard to fake something as random and organic as cracks and breaks, IMHO.
 
2013-07-23 03:31:24 PM
The picture of the aircraft was not convincing at all, but the rest were very good.

The problem with the aircraft pic is the lack of harsh lighting... the air is rarefied at those altitudes, I'd also expect to see some sort of "glint" off of the aircraft. It simply doesn't feel the same as when I've seen aircraft in real life.

The tractor picture had some great detail, but bordered on fakiness, as did the bridge scene.

The backyard pic, however, was incredible.
 
2013-07-23 03:31:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I remember seeing Final Fantasy The Spirits Within when it came out, and I was blown away by how realistic it looked.  Now that I look back at screen grabs, it's obvious that it wasn't, but at the time it was breathtaking.  Now, you could probably do this in real time on consumer level hardware:


It was amazing. That chick is hawt... Sure, it might not hold up nowadays, but it was a major step forward.

As for Pixar and Dreamworks, there is usually a major advance in each movie that blows you away when you notice it. In Monsters Inc., it was fur and hair. Holy crap. Water played a big part in The Incredibles, and in Monsters U, there was amazing detail in eyeballs, like they figured out how to really do closeups of eyes and make not just the texture look correct, but the liquid has the right consistency, and the iris had amazing detail. Of course, you saw this mostly in Mike's eye...

Just because they aren't photo realistic, it doesn't mean that they aren't making amazing strides... Besides, with the quality of CGI now, I'm not sure what place a photo-realistic 100% animated movie would fill. We have some scenes that are pretty much 100% CGI/animation already as it is...
 
2013-07-23 03:32:25 PM
You guys all sound like studman69.

/Also thought the tractor was off.
 
2013-07-23 03:39:49 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Neat. When will we get to the point where these folks who are really good at hyperrealistic renderings actually DO something with them?


Have you seen Pacific Rim yet?
 
2013-07-23 03:40:04 PM

Mikey1969: As for Pixar and Dreamworks, there is usually a major advance in each movie that blows you away when you notice it. In Monsters Inc., it was fur and hair. Holy crap. Water played a big part in The Incredibles, and in Monsters U, there was amazing detail in eyeballs, like they figured out how to really do closeups of eyes and make not just the texture look correct, but the liquid has the right consistency, and the iris had amazing detail. Of course, you saw this mostly in Mike's eye...


I remember that for Wall-E they were modeling lens distorsion to make the movie look more like what we're used to see.  I guess that was kind of lost with the cartoonish characters in the spaceship.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report