I've always said a retoucher always tries to stray away from what a cgi artist looks to achieve. i.e. they want what each other have. perfection, and a lack of it.
Yet... I know this sounds arrogant, but I feel like I would eventually realize they're real photos if I stared at these long enough without being told. i.e. If I saw them framed on a wall and walked past them every day.
The image noise, surface imperfections, chromatic aberrations, etc. are clues, and yes a raytracer can reproduce that, but not usually this well. That's precisely why I think these are beautiful.
I think the main thing that gives away the shapes image is that the glass surface has thickness. You can see that there are 2 layers of reflection visible on horizontal edges because of it. You could do that in CGI, but nobody does - they make the base surface slightly reflective.
I don't think I would notice it out of context though...
In VFX at the high-end (the smaller studios do often take shortcuts) we do model full layered materials with thickness, at least for mid to hero-level assets, so we would do the glass with proper volumetric thickness, with fully-correct inter-reflecting/refracting dielectric BSDFs modelling the glass, with correct IOR and total internal reflection.
It is slower to render than using "thin glass", and lighting the checkerboard surface underneath the glass isn't as efficient (you can't do naive Next Event Estimation through the refraction of the glass volume, but you can do manifold walks to solve that), but we do it at that level of fidelity often enough when required and have been for years. There are times when it's not required though, so approximations can be acceptable in more forgiving situations.
Yes, you totally can do it if you want to. What I meant is that that kind of CGI scene composition does not include a glass sheet on the surface. They used it to add the reflection to a checkered pattern instead of trying to find something like polished marble.
But if we found a thousand different versions of that scene in CGI, I would bet that every single one of them would use a checkered pattern plane that's slightly reflective. Maybe even uses marble subsurface scattering. But none would add a sheet of glass on the plane as a not-forced modelling choice. That's what makes the photo identifiable as a photo.
This can happen accidentally as well. For example, the default Windows 10 wallpaper was created using a physical model, an array of projectors, and a smoke machine. Alas, the end result turned out to be indistinguishable from CG. [1]
I think for building anything (art, code, furniture) the tools help you find the result. Building it a second time is much easier and requires a lot less sophistication.
Yes, I don't know what to say. I just want to emphasize what you say, because it's apparently an alien concept to many people. Tools and process inform the art. How could it not be that way, really?
"Cool C64 demo you have there buddy, I could do that in Unity in an afternoon". Yes, but would you? (Edit: and even if you did, it would be a copy of a unique style born out of specific circumstances.)
That's nice and all, but isn't that a huge waste of time/money/resources? What is the advantage of doing it this way over just creating a wallpaper digitally?
This kind of maximal efficiency attitude is precisely why programs aren't "fun" anymore. Oftentimes, taking the scenic route instead of the highway is how you awe and inspire people; I know I was.
If anyone reading this remembers the 90s and early 00s with Easter Eggs and other fun programs with character, y'all know what I'm talking about.
You clearly don't know what computing was like back when developers' passions were oozing out of pretty much everything they wrote. Even something as mundane as an icon left an impression.
These kinds of "Wait... Seriously? Wow!" stories play a big role in inspiring the next generation to come and do the work of the future. We're seeing far less of them now in computing, and everyone wonders why the younger generations aren't as inspired about technology anymore.
When everything is a brutal race to the bottom to fleece you for every damn bit you're worth, damn right everyone's going to find greener pastures to be inspired by.
You went of on some tangent about the 'old days of passionate software developers' which seems like something that just happened to be on your mind, not something with any connection here.
When you say 'we' should splurge you really mean someone else.
Also this wasn't a splurge, this probably took less time to make than doing it in CG and people who can do the photography probably don't know how to do it in CG in the first place.
With products like Windows, there's a chance that the desktop background, the startup chime and suchlike will end up as iconic as the Coca-Cola logo.
The designers would have told the CEO that this is going to be seen by 100x more people than a Superbowl ad spot, and 100x as many times per person too. So getting the perfect image/sound made for the cost of a single superbowl ad is a great deal.
Of course, whether they've succeeded at producing the perfect image is another matter.
The Windows 95 startup chime was composed by Brian Eno, so MS are used to paying for this stuff.
In this case specifically it deals with light going through a pattern and into mist, which is going to have a lot light scattering inside an uneven volume. This still takes a lot of time to render and will be more difficult to match to a photograph than other things.
That reminds me of a real world experience I had a few years ago, where a real engine in front of my eyes looked like CGI.
I was on a small cruise on Switzerland's PS Gallia [1], the fastest lake steamboat in Europe. When you're on it, you can look down the center of the main deck to watch the engine at work. The engine is perfect. Perfect casing with diffuse white (IIRC) reflection, perfect golden metallic joints with glossy reflection, perfect little vials of oil on top of each moving part, to constantly oil them. It felt too perfect to be real, and really looked like it was animated CGI, yet it was there, 3 meters away from me, moving and powering the boat.
It doesn't help that steam engines are surprisingly not all that noisy either. For the sheer amount of force a steam engine creates basically the only real noise is the exhaust steam, which if piped elsewhere you won't hear much.
Ah yes! I came from a 3rd world country. The urban planning is chaotic and pollution everywhere.
Whenever I travel to a 1st world western country, both city and suburb, I see the clear blue sky and sceneries (buildings, roads, layout) that make me feel like I'm in a 3D FPS or city sim game.
Places that seem like surreal 3D renders have attracted the name "liminal space" if you want some keywords to find similar material, although the aesthetic tends to veer towards solitary and slightly creepy environments
The "logo teaser" / title announcement for the Lord of the Rings - The Rings of Power show also made lots of people think it was some form of CGI, since they felt it didn't look believable. Turns out it was actually filmed with practical effects.
This is a pet peeve of mine, as someone who does CG art among other things. The popular narrative is that CGI always can be spotted and it always looks bad when in fact it's the other way around. Bad looking things are attributed to CGI regardless, and good looking things are assumed to be practical.
Yeah, cutting the 'these' completely changed my expectations for the article. Without it, it sounds like it'd be a rant about the relative artistic validity of photography and CGI.
I think HN automatically removes certain words like "This" and "How" from the start of titles. But this only happens on initial submission - the user who submitted it can then edit the title to fix it if necessary.
There is a youtube channel which does a whole variety of mechanical contraptions, and it is absolutely impossible to tell if it is real from the videos.
I cannot remember it unfortunately, but the youtuber had to show some background footage to convince people those weren't fake.
Perhaps McDonalds menus, IKEA catalogues, and Playboy shots are real photos as well? They just make an extraordinary effort and spend tons of money to make make it look fake.
I've seen behind-the-scenes stories of how those burger shots are made. They are very real photos of very real burgers, what isn't real is how the burger is assembled for the shot as compared to the burgers we eat.
McDonalds menus are real photos, just not of the things they are supposed to portray. There are lots of tricks to making burgers look good in photos, and the end result isn't edible, even if you take out the cardboard slices that make it look bigger.
Make an experiment. Take a fast food "meal" back home, put it on a plate with cutlery and pour drinks into a glass, remove all branding and packages. Would you eat this or a cardboard?
Aren't there laws against this sort of thing? I have distict memories of learning in high school that food advertisements have to use real food and can't use trickery to make it look different. I seem to remember watching some with Rick Mercer in it, but hat might be wrong.
In 2018, when launching the first real-time raytracing GPU, NVIDIA made an exhibition [2] at SIGGRAPH honoring "Figure 7" from Turner Whitted's original Raytracing paper [1]. It consisted of a forced perspective floor and some suspended spheres. Lighting was a nightmare to get right.
Was a bit sad to discover the current studio website at this point. Everything is coerced to the past state, it's a pretty bold and artistic move. Appreciate it.
64 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadI've always said a retoucher always tries to stray away from what a cgi artist looks to achieve. i.e. they want what each other have. perfection, and a lack of it.
Yet... I know this sounds arrogant, but I feel like I would eventually realize they're real photos if I stared at these long enough without being told. i.e. If I saw them framed on a wall and walked past them every day.
The image noise, surface imperfections, chromatic aberrations, etc. are clues, and yes a raytracer can reproduce that, but not usually this well. That's precisely why I think these are beautiful.
I don't think I would notice it out of context though...
It is slower to render than using "thin glass", and lighting the checkerboard surface underneath the glass isn't as efficient (you can't do naive Next Event Estimation through the refraction of the glass volume, but you can do manifold walks to solve that), but we do it at that level of fidelity often enough when required and have been for years. There are times when it's not required though, so approximations can be acceptable in more forgiving situations.
But if we found a thousand different versions of that scene in CGI, I would bet that every single one of them would use a checkered pattern plane that's slightly reflective. Maybe even uses marble subsurface scattering. But none would add a sheet of glass on the plane as a not-forced modelling choice. That's what makes the photo identifiable as a photo.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewmXizBqjl0
"Cool C64 demo you have there buddy, I could do that in Unity in an afternoon". Yes, but would you? (Edit: and even if you did, it would be a copy of a unique style born out of specific circumstances.)
A lot of product photos that people think are renders are real photos too, just done with a Phase One.
This kind of maximal efficiency attitude is precisely why programs aren't "fun" anymore. Oftentimes, taking the scenic route instead of the highway is how you awe and inspire people; I know I was.
If anyone reading this remembers the 90s and early 00s with Easter Eggs and other fun programs with character, y'all know what I'm talking about.
It's a company, efficiency is money. That's why companies exist.
why programs aren't "fun" anymore
Programs have nothing to do with this, you grabbed that out of thin air. This is about making an image.
Oftentimes, taking the scenic route instead of the highway is how you awe and inspire people; I know I was.
That's good advice for vacation, not a professional environment where someone is paying you for results.
These kinds of "Wait... Seriously? Wow!" stories play a big role in inspiring the next generation to come and do the work of the future. We're seeing far less of them now in computing, and everyone wonders why the younger generations aren't as inspired about technology anymore.
When everything is a brutal race to the bottom to fleece you for every damn bit you're worth, damn right everyone's going to find greener pastures to be inspired by.
I'm answering why we should (within reason) splurge on these kinds of fun, seemingly pointless side tracks.
When you say 'we' should splurge you really mean someone else.
Also this wasn't a splurge, this probably took less time to make than doing it in CG and people who can do the photography probably don't know how to do it in CG in the first place.
The designers would have told the CEO that this is going to be seen by 100x more people than a Superbowl ad spot, and 100x as many times per person too. So getting the perfect image/sound made for the cost of a single superbowl ad is a great deal.
Of course, whether they've succeeded at producing the perfect image is another matter.
The Windows 95 startup chime was composed by Brian Eno, so MS are used to paying for this stuff.
The picture was apparently taken before it became part of a winery.
I was on a small cruise on Switzerland's PS Gallia [1], the fastest lake steamboat in Europe. When you're on it, you can look down the center of the main deck to watch the engine at work. The engine is perfect. Perfect casing with diffuse white (IIRC) reflection, perfect golden metallic joints with glossy reflection, perfect little vials of oil on top of each moving part, to constantly oil them. It felt too perfect to be real, and really looked like it was animated CGI, yet it was there, 3 meters away from me, moving and powering the boat.
[1] https://www.lakelucerne.ch/en/your-cruise-experience/explore...
Shots of the engine
The reason it looked like CGI, in part, is because the engine is unexpectedly big, shiny, and COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATELY PLACED.
We usually witness such stupidity only in sci-fi, where it's all made-up, so it's OK.
Whenever I travel to a 1st world western country, both city and suburb, I see the clear blue sky and sceneries (buildings, roads, layout) that make me feel like I'm in a 3D FPS or city sim game.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LiminalSpace/
The teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhqGCPMfkNM
Behind the scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC_yTMST7mw
I cannot remember it unfortunately, but the youtuber had to show some background footage to convince people those weren't fake.
edit: Found it - https://www.youtube.com/@OleksandrStepanenko
Most of the parts of a photography burger are literally inedible.
[0] http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/box/compare.html
[1] https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~david/Classes/Papers/p343-whitted...
[2] https://techgage.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Rob-Posing-W...