Render or Real?
-
Gotta go with render, too. Everything is a little too perfect, too clean. The tires are a good point too, they're made of solid rubber, otherwise they'd be flexed more where the rubber meets the road. Also, some of the lighting/shading in the tread seems a bit odd as well.
-
Not saying I could do better, as I probably couldn't, but there's loads of sure-fire giveaways that this is a CGI.
To correct most of those modelling and rendering shortcomings would take way more time than it'd be worth for a hobby render, but about 1 minute's photoshopping to adjust gamma, exposure, add a little deformation to the tyres and blur the background and foreground increased the realism considerably... I think.
-
How about this one....render or real?
-
I think that's a render as well. But there is doubt there.
-
I say it's a render as well. Check out the bump on the oil drum.
-
Wow, now that's a good render! Only real giveaways are like Stinkie sais, the bump map/reflection on the oil barrel, the reflection on the hub of the trailer wheel is a little too even and the lighting being a tiny bit too studio-like rather than exterior. Very impressive modelling, texturing, detailing and lighting. If you'd posted that among a few genuine photos and CGIs I doubt I'd be able to out it no matter how long I studied it.
-
Render.
Tire displacement, wall texture, glass, trailer wood texture, drum.
-
Yes, it's a render. Here's another...
-
render (changed my mind)..I think, but some shrubs look suspect.
This one has me guessing.
Um..no firelane stripes, reflection look strange, sky is very CG.
This is now borderline...I'm in two minds.
-
I'd say render, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was real. The driveway just looks too perfect for me.
Most difficult choice so far.
-
@xrok1 said:
too clean
besides if it was a real photo shoot there'd be a chick on the hood!
....Lifelessly clean...
-
with regards to the first one, things like that can go either way, i think. Heavy photoshopping can produce very similar results. having said that, i think that particular example is CG.
As for that last one, id go CG as well. There are too many small things that looked rendered. then again it could be a weird photograph.
-
I'd guess that the last one is real, if heavily photoshopped. The house has all kinds of details that imply that it is really lived in. A CG artist always puts things in to "enhance" the image, but the things you see inside the house, are IMO not arranged in order to make a render. The noise in the image looks photographic - I don't know how easy it is to fake it, but I don't remember seeing a convincing CG DOF simulation.
Anssi
-
that last one is real, with post touch up on the sky i think... next
-
the last one shows an example of what i was talking about with the original car.. it's a photo but shot at the worst time of day for this type of shot (harsh overhead light).. whoever shot it figured it doesn't matter since photoshop has a shadows/highlights tool and or levels/curves layer.. + the magic replace blown out sky button..
regardless, it's not a 'real' photograph even though it was partially made with a camera.
-
Correct, previous one was a photo.
Which one of these things is not like the others? Only one is a render, the rest are photos.
-
Id go with number 5 as my first choice of render and no 6 as my second choice.
-
I think its number 6. Its has that speckled unbiased render feel to it (though some people like to take photos like that too I suppose
). Also, the big pillows feel too rigid. And the wicker is too uptight. Plus it might not mean anything, but its also the only one that is shaped differently as an image.But that's just a guess,
Chris
-
Looking at it again i think i'll have to agree with you chris. those pillows look pretty suspect.
-
i think the third one (real or render5.jpg) is the render though the light fixture looks suspect on the last one..
Advertisement