>tfw you'll never be able to make this realistic 3d models

thank god for that

>>503215
why

>>503217
coz it looks like cum

>>503220
Thats because he is a cum skin

>>503221
Aside from the terribly CGI looking unclumped hair and the shitty SSS on the cum thing hes wearing around his neck, they used that same god forsaken skin shader that makes it look like pure dogshit.

>>503222
I have no odea what you are yalking about but that pic looks realistic af

>>503223
By the standards of photorealism, it's a real piece of shit.

>>503224
Post a good one then

File: CGI.jpg (272KB, 820x1151px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 820x1151px

>>503225

>>503226
Everything in that "render" comes from a digital camera. It's pathetic

File: CGI behind the scenes 1.jpg (635KB, 1200x881px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1200x881px

>>503227

>>503225
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/506a5a9fe4b0244b0fda83df/t/55b6fd04e4b0e7b01e3b2403/1437973476968/?format=1000w
teeth look a bit too artificial if i'm too fucking picky


http://static1.squarespace.com/static/506a5a9fe4b0244b0fda83df/t/5510f7afe4b0d7df617d9c28/1427175346105/mathieuAerni_Paul_001.jpg?format=1000w

he went a bit lazy on the eyes, but the AO one dem lips

also a portrait of a chick on the verge of tears being wrapped by black hands which i can't find

there will always be imperfections for one reason or the other, but that's just about all the realism u can achieve with today's tools

>>503226
Classic, in my mind that guy still won the race to photo realism. It was hilarious just how butthurt the community got when CG society recognized his achievement.

File: Teruyuki-2[1].jpg (103KB, 851x603px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 851x603px

>>503229
we matrix now

>>503231
It still looks like wax

>>503232
no it doesn't

>>503233
You see it's CG immediately, same with Op. Perry's 'tacky amateur photo' still looks real even after you know it's not. At least from the ankles up, them feet are really a eyesore on such a otherwise excellent piece.

>>503226
source? how much post processing was involved in this? the grain really does a good job

>>503235
It's on the image. It was a pretty big deal on CG talk back in 07.

>>503235
It's just retouched with post-processing a little to give the lens artifacts that naturally come with the camera.

>>503236
i meant a link to the thread or something. would like to read peoples replies

>>503213
Indeed, but you don't have to be a cunt about it.

>>503230
>Classic, in my mind that guy still won the race to photo realism. It was hilarious just how butthurt the community got when CG society recognized his achievement.

Nope, looks incredibly photosourced, thats it. Also, you can never win the photo realism "race" without animation. And the thing with that is...well...it always turns out to be extremely heavily mocapped

>>503240
> it's not photorealistic if the technique it's done doesn't please me
Found the retard.

>>503238
google 'weird science cgtalk' and it should reveal the thread.

>>503242
thx, doesn't let me see the thread even with an account tho :(. whatever

>>503241
>Found the retard.
>ad hominem

good day, then.

>>503244
You are retarded for thinking photorealistic renders shouldn't use photos or recorded mocaps.
Did you think handpainted textures were a better way to achieve reality ? retard ?

>>503245
If you want to achieve photorealism it has to be done with 100% procedural algorithms, not with taking actual photographs and compositing them together in after effects or equivalent then rendering it in after effects or equivalent

>>503246
> If you want to achieve photorealism it has to be done with 100% procedural algorithms
You are the very first retard I've heard in my life that suggest such a thing. I'm not even gonna ask why you think that since it's pants-on-head moronic. And nobodys gonna try doing photorealism that way either.

>>503243
Perhaps they locked it and threw away the key, some pretty big names in the CG scene made a bit of s fool out of themselves ITT as I recall.

>>503247
> I'm not even gonna ask why you think that since it's pants-on-head moronic

nice comeback. 0/10. Gb2 your photosourcing job and let the big cats post pls

>>503231
I'd fuck her.

>>503249
> nobody in any respectable film industry ever used procedural autism to achieve photorealism
> we're the big cats
you're pathetic

>>503249
just how far do you think you can go with today's procedural algorithms on time and on budget, idiot?

File: cff.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>503257

>>503226
>i'll just hide the minor imperfections by putting a buttload of instagram filters on it lel
>that left foot doesnt fit
>hyperrealistic

>>503222
i wouldnt say its pure dogshit but this anon is right

>>503283
I, too, am unable to see what is wrong with it.

>>503280
2007 called.
Asked if you can do better in 2015

>>503213
Uhm why not?
Only reason I can think of is its not worth your time to practice. If that's the case then you're choosing to not be good enough.

>>503226
>No reflection on floor
>Shadows wonky asf
>Head mega blurred in comparison
>Clavicula connects to middle of shoulder

:^)

>>503226
>>503230
He used photogammetry to create that, it's a 3D scan essentially, he didn't model it, thus the achievement is invalidated. I can take a photo of real-life too and have it look realistic.

Bump


Can we make this thread about photorealism? Post photorealistic renders and discuss how to get such results.

>>503523
bump

>>503524
>>503523

If somebody takes interest and wants to post something, they will. Don't fucking bump you faggot.

>>503532
Thanks for the bump

>>503213

Who the hell says you can't?! It's just a matter of putting forth the effort into learning it.

If you can't do it, that's on you

>>503539
I havent found a good tutorial for realisting skin texturing

>>503558
Because there's no tutorial for skill. It's an art. You simply have to learn about how the skin gets its colors and replicate that. Mentalray has an amazing skin shader that gives you color and intensity texture inputs for back scatter, subdermal, epidermal, dermal and basic diffuse. Major control over how your skin will render and look.

>>503559
>back scatter
>subdermal
>epidermal
>dermal
>basic diffuse
Dont even know what they mean tbqh senpai

File: skin-layers.gif (12KB, 200x148px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x148px

>>503560
You skin has interconnected layers. Those different layers absorb light different, and also have varying thickness/color all across the body. Understanding the differences in the way these layers look on different parts of the body, especially the face, is important to creating believable skin.

>>503560
Well if you watched enough anime to call other anons senpai you should understand the concept of undertaking extreme training regimes in order to grow stronger.

Google it all and start learning.

>>503565
Wtf.... I am pretty sure i wrote senpai and not senpai

>>503566
f.a.m not senpai

>>503564
So where can i learn all this stuff

>>503568
College.

>>503572
No, about the only art college that might even have a slight chance of teaching that would be Gnomon. All the others will not even mention this. You just have to take shit into your hands and do research.

File: Lounge room2.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

Rate my obligatory Barcelona chair and stool render please.

What did I do wrong?

>>503587
Chair leather is too glossy and seems to lack the surface pitting/pattern that leather exhibits. Should probably be a touch darker too, and turn on a touch of SSS if you haven't, leather is dried skin, it absorbs and blends light a bit. Even the synthetic stuff behaves somewhat similar.

Edges on your windowsill looks way too sharp.
Light on the windowsill is overblown and the low resolution of your HDRi background creates a bit of an eye-sore.

>>503588
The tree is actually just an alpha mapped plane, which yes I know is low res but Google sometimes doesn't give great options.

How can I make the light look less overblown?

>>503572
a yes, college, let's waste 30000 dollars to listen to some old faggot telling you how ngons are the devil. there are hundreds of pages of threads on the internet with people trying to recreate perfect skin, and get this: shit is free

>>503564
Not responding so much to this post, but to comment on skin in general; I think there is an overemphasis on back scattering and translucency when it comes to replicate skin. The BRDF of any material that isn't highly transparent is the single most important contributor to the overall look. If you get this right your skin shader will look 95% lifelike even without calculating any translucent effects.

>>503620
> will look 95% lifelike even without calculating any translucent effects.
Except that's the problem with human faces, 95% isn't anywhere near good enough. We have evolved over millions of years to detect the most subtle of differences in faces so that we can identify eachother. If anything about the way our brains expect a face to be shaded is off, we detect it.

Getting the eyelids, nose and especially ears to look correct requires you to start using back-scatter maps as well as an internal skull model to further affect SSS. Or else you get the typical "ears look like wax" complaint because the SSS had to be lowered so much to allow the rest of the face to looks somewhat natural.

>>503635
As if anything substantial ever happens on a yearly basis. It's a scheme to pay for bullshit development that keep selling you the same product at a fixed rate, further removing and incitement or pressure to innovate.

>Anti-monopoly only comes in when there is almost no competitors in the marketplace.

With max maya and softimage autodesk easily had over 90% of the proficient user base in it's pocket. If that isn't a harmful polarization of a market I don't know what is.

>>503639
It's only considered a monopoly if there are no competitors or maybe only one. It's not about the market share.

>As if anything substantial ever happens on a yearly basis.
You must not be a Maya user then.

>>503226
ok got it, make it look like shit for realism. (this one in particular got me)

File: 11219620_10153416204841843_5753103892456264405_n[1].jpg (79KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x600px

this looks nice. not 100% realistic but still

File: 222222.jpg (16KB, 273x387px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 273x387px

>>504614

File: ScottHall.gif (2MB, 200x160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x160px

>>503213
>tfw the only way you can ever hope to get a job in 3d modeling is being able to make realistic 3d models better and faster than that

>>504614

>saved

>>503213
Try rotating it or animating it then. Bet who made it couldn't...

>>506696
yea because that's not the purpose of that model you dumb shit.

>>506696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1iOlgDipZQ
like this one?

>>504576
>2
Also, use photogammetry (taking multiple photos of a subject and letting the computer make the model for you... That's what this guy specializes in.)

>>506700
it's a useless model then

>>506707
that one has a low poly count which is easier to move in a scene unlike the other one

>>507742
>portraiture is not a thing

k