Fake or Foto?
-
I think the materials can often be a give away as well. For example the screw of the lightbulb has lots of little flecks of dirt and stress marks, stuff that would most likely be missed if it was modelled.
Having said that, the material on the gavel looks almost CG in its perfectness
-
True... That, and overuse and 'perfectness' of effects, like field of view, as well as perfectly tiled textures (pattern around radio clock), and perfectly straight edges with no blur; a few things that gave some of them away.
-
Dodgy DoF is also a dead give away (see the first pic for a good example.)
-
The Results
Twelve out of twelve answers are correct. Excellent-- a perfect score and a superior performance.
look for imperfections...like the light bulb has a funny dent or bend to the metal that makes the reflections slightly different. But the imperfections are not at a "placed" place i mean they need to be at a place that they would actually occur. Look at the textures do they look to perfect if they do than it's CG. Look at the teddy bear picture one of the bears is just slightly of kilter...there is just a natural randomness to the photograph but in CG the randomness seems forced.
just my 2 cents.
-
I got the teddies and the gavel wrong…guessed CG (which they could equally have been). In some cases it’s the depth of field giving it away…much too overdone on the croc. Tower Bridge is very well done; I guessed it was CG only because The Tower of London isn’t floodlit in the background.
The door had to be a photo, even if it was a model. You can’t use photo textures to that degree on something that is essentially flat and claim anything else. -
Thats interesting, i dont think the tower bridge pic is particularly good. looks a lot like a scale model to me.
-
@unknownuser said:
Twelve out of twelve answers are correct. Excellent-- a perfect score and a superior performance.
Though, some of them where hard. It would all depend on how much attention to detail the CD artist did. Some tell tales are uniform textures, and that CG images often doesn't have scratches and imperfections. Though, it's not impossible to add these imperfections, it's usually "good enough" without.
-
@alan fraser said:
Tower Bridge is very well done; I guessed it was CG only because The Tower of London isn’t floodlit in the background.
To me, it was the repeating texture of the bridge foundation where it meets the water that immediately stood out.
-
@thomthom said:
@alan fraser said:
Tower Bridge is very well done; I guessed it was CG only because The Tower of London isn’t floodlit in the background.
To me, it was the repeating texture of the bridge foundation where it meets the water that immediately stood out.
Me, it was the fact that a lot of the beams from the lights were completely out-of place, and very similar, and the bridge even seemed out of place from the background.
Advertisement