Comments on: Which is the photo and which is the render? http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/ Fresh Blender News, Every Day Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:26:28 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Hx http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-2/#comment-170671 Hx Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:37:14 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-170671 I guessed right, one thing that differs is the lamps - they are not straight in the photo, but are in the render. The modeler hasn't spotted it... I guessed right, one thing that differs is the lamps – they are not straight in the photo, but are in the render. The modeler hasn't spotted it…

]]> By: Master Danix http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-2/#comment-105438 Master Danix Mon, 21 May 2007 16:43:51 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-105438 It's the first image,because the clouds of the second It's the first image,because the clouds of the second

]]> By: epat http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-2/#comment-100186 epat Mon, 07 May 2007 23:15:40 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-100186 Well - I couldn't actually tell until I read the answer! - I did notice the segmentation on the area in the top right actually but I happen to know that it is also possible with real cameras too (usually only when zoomed right in with more expensive cameras) it can be caused by the fact that the (normally closed) hole where the light enters a camera looks hexagonal when open... I'm not sure whether this is only possible with film cameras or digital cameras as well but I think that some of NASA's space pictures show the effect quite well - unless they're really just fakes as some people would have lol!! The only other thing is the lens distortion on the window ledges at the bottom of the top image - but I think that it was just caused by a slightly different perspective since maxwell renders lens distorsion correctly anyway!! It's amazingly real though and I see that most people got it completely wrong having read all of the comments - and even gave reasons for it lol!! maybe you should do a poll next time!! -epat. :) Well – I couldn't actually tell until I read the answer! – I did notice the segmentation on the area in the top right actually but I happen to know that it is also possible with real cameras too (usually only when zoomed right in with more expensive cameras) it can be caused by the fact that the (normally closed) hole where the light enters a camera looks hexagonal when open… I'm not sure whether this is only possible with film cameras or digital cameras as well but I think that some of NASA's space pictures show the effect quite well – unless they're really just fakes as some people would have lol!! The only other thing is the lens distortion on the window ledges at the bottom of the top image – but I think that it was just caused by a slightly different perspective since maxwell renders lens distorsion correctly anyway!!
It's amazingly real though and I see that most people got it completely wrong having read all of the comments – and even gave reasons for it lol!! maybe you should do a poll next time!!
-epat. :)

]]> By: steve http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-2/#comment-100178 steve Mon, 07 May 2007 22:48:16 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-100178 at least the second is rendered, the reflections on the windows look pretty "computer image" to me :-) Also, the skybox looks strange, and its aligned black border top-left. Plus, I think I've spotted texture repetitions on the concrete. oh, and all this glass/frames on the windows look too flawless. at least the second is rendered, the reflections on the windows look pretty "computer image" to me :-)
Also, the skybox looks strange, and its aligned black border top-left. Plus, I think I've spotted texture repetitions on the concrete.
oh, and all this glass/frames on the windows look too flawless.

]]> By: solo_d http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-2/#comment-99990 solo_d Mon, 07 May 2007 13:10:16 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99990 Pointless post, both jpg are too compressed to judge. Anyway in the second shot i can see macroscopic antialias problems on the edge of the glass building, hence that must be the render: the fact that the author put more elaborate textures fooled most of the people, imho, and he did that on a purpose :) Pointless post, both jpg are too compressed to judge. Anyway in the second shot i can see macroscopic antialias problems on the edge of the glass building, hence that must be the render: the fact that the author put more elaborate textures fooled most of the people, imho, and he did that on a purpose :)

]]> By: Zsolt http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-1/#comment-99918 Zsolt Mon, 07 May 2007 08:21:55 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99918 The first one (2.jpg) is the photo, the second is the render, you can tell by how "perfect" it is, ie: lacking dirt on the windows, and the imperfections in the windowframes. However it IS a very very nice image!! Maxwell does cost money, but Indigo should be able to produce just as convincing results! Clouds: don't know what he used here, but it is just too easy to take a photo of clouds and use it as a texture, so that's not what differentiates a render from a photo. One more thing: the very top of the building (with the billboard) in the top picture, the photo, looks more realistic, as you can tell it is further away: lighter, blueish, less saturation: ie: "air volumetrics". This is sort of lacking in the Maxwell render: does it have volumetrics? What I do to simulate this is just use a Z-buffer as mask, and make the farther parts of the final render a bit blueish and less saturated. Anyways: very good render!!! The first one (2.jpg) is the photo, the second is the render, you can tell by how "perfect" it is, ie: lacking dirt on the windows, and the imperfections in the windowframes.
However it IS a very very nice image!!
Maxwell does cost money, but Indigo should be able to produce just as convincing results!
Clouds: don't know what he used here, but it is just too easy to take a photo of clouds and use it as a texture, so that's not what differentiates a render from a photo.

One more thing: the very top of the building (with the billboard) in the top picture, the photo, looks more realistic, as you can tell it is further away: lighter, blueish, less saturation: ie: "air volumetrics". This is sort of lacking in the Maxwell render: does it have volumetrics?
What I do to simulate this is just use a Z-buffer as mask, and make the farther parts of the final render a bit blueish and less saturated.

Anyways: very good render!!!

]]> By: Phillip Baxter http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-1/#comment-99849 Phillip Baxter Mon, 07 May 2007 04:03:01 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99849 ....um... look at the first post on the thread. It tells you that the bottom image is the render and the top image is actually the source art. So for everyone who's complaining about the clouds in the top "rendered" image... that's the real thing. oops. :) ….um…

look at the first post on the thread. It tells you that the bottom image is the render and the top image is actually the source art.

So for everyone who's complaining about the clouds in the top "rendered" image… that's the real thing. oops. :)

]]> By: Kram1032 http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-1/#comment-99712 Kram1032 Sun, 06 May 2007 19:33:52 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99712 look at the wall part on the top right. AND hover your mouse above the VERY first pic, that doesn't enlarge and look, how it's called :P look at the wall part on the top right.

AND hover your mouse above the VERY first pic, that doesn't enlarge and look, how it's called :P

]]> By: MOXAB http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-1/#comment-99288 MOXAB Sat, 05 May 2007 14:37:35 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99288 Without looking at the CLOUDS, I think the render looks very convincing. I would just give a suggestion to the guy behind the render. Don't save the image as a JPEG, That takes away noticeable quality. Without looking at the CLOUDS, I think the render looks very convincing. I would just give a suggestion to the guy behind the render. Don't save the image as a JPEG, That takes away noticeable quality.

]]> By: Dzeni http://www.blendernation.com/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/comment-page-1/#comment-99085 Dzeni Sat, 05 May 2007 07:37:57 +0000 http://www.blendernation.com/2007/05/03/which-is-the-photo-and-which-is-the-render/#comment-99085 Second one is real. The clouds were what "gave it away". I spend way too much time being inspired by clouds (they are fractal in nature) and it was obvious which one was "real" and which was a render. The wall is also too perfect - but its still an amazing job. Besides, that's what I love about rendering. You can make stuff more perfect than it actually is! Second one is real. The clouds were what "gave it away". I spend way too much time being inspired by clouds (they are fractal in nature) and it was obvious which one was "real" and which was a render. The wall is also too perfect – but its still an amazing job. Besides, that's what I love about rendering. You can make stuff more perfect than it actually is!

]]>