Realism in Blender

[René]

https://80.lv/articles/stunning-photoreal-renders-in-blender-by-blitter/?fbclid=IwAR0akCrJXG6bDd4FxktQ3_GoSwFW_oFIL62RgzWn0-iHq_rMZm5Y8HtWQW0

[sboerner]

Incredible work. In the right context (say, a Facebook feed) they'd easily pass as real.

[KlausK]

It is for sure incredible work (in CG terms) but,...

I don`t see how an untrained eye - without something like this being advertised
as "stunning photoreal rendering in blender" - would even spot it as non-real in any context, really.
The only thing which kept me personally thinking was that it is too clean and flawless overall.
Only because I was looking for something because I knew they are not real world photographies.

But it`s not just this artist. There are tons of CG renderings out there, sometimes here as well,
which pass the flyby reality check of scroll through viewers.

CHeers, Klaus

[Nala1977]

It is for sure incredible work (in CG terms) but,...

I don`t see how an untrained eye - without something like this being advertised
as "stunning photoreal rendering in blender" - would even spot it as non-real in any context, really.
The only thing which kept me personally thinking was that it is too clean and flawless overall.
Only because I was looking for something because I knew they are not real world photographies.

But it`s not just this artist. There are tons of CG renderings out there, sometimes here as well,
which pass the flyby reality check of scroll through viewers.

CHeers, Klaus

im not sure whats the fuss all about this image these days... Its a Premade model from DAZ studio (which he posed and added hair). the shading is very basic and also flat, the environment texture/shading/lighting is amateur at best, with UV issues, no details and extremely low res modeling.

oh well..

maybe i was too harsh but seriously i cant understand this "glorification" of this artwork, with all the respect to the artist and creator.

[René]

Sure, there are plenty of examples of realistic renders that are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing but are just too stunning and therefore not credible. These images are anything but stunning; if they were photographs, I wouldn't pay any attention to them. I think it's mostly the ugly flash lighting that makes these images look real.

[KlausK]

I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I am not glorifying or praising the artist here at all and I was not commenting on the technical aspects
of the renderings. I was not looking at that. I was referring to sboerners remark:

In the right context (say, a Facebook feed) they'd easily pass as real.

A lot of stuff in more contexts passes as "real", just because the attention to detail, flaws, lighting etc. is not on the viewers mind in those contexts. You are involved in looking at something like this with a rather different mindset.

Anyway, maybe I misunderstood something in your replies...

CHeers, Klaus

[sboerner]

I guess some of us are easily impressed. 

It was the lighting and composition of the renderings that interested me as well . . . maybe I should have been more clear. It's fascinating to me how we (all consumers of visual media) so easily conflate "photorealism" with "realism" when those are two very different things. For example, a rendering that includes depth of field, bad lighting, and grain, can seem more convincing because it replicates photographic techniques, not the real world. 

Perhaps if 3D technology had been available in the 1850s, people would have been impressed with renderings that mimicked daguerrotypes and tintypes, because to them those would look "real."

[Dune]

Right!

[WAS]

Photos however are a type of real-world medium and real-world capture, including duplicating real-world stuff, rays etc. If it's photorealistic, it's real world realistic. Grading provided by a lens and capabilities is kinda irrelevant and our eyes and brain do the same thing, and we all tend to grade images in post anyway, render, or photograph.

[Dune]

I think there's been some discussion about this earlier. Photo's are logically the reference for (photo)-realism, because the human eye actually only sees a central fraction of all visible area sharp, the rest is blurred. So, real 'realism' would need different renders

[WAS]

I think that area is called Vision-Realistic. Which a team recently did for game engines that I shared here. Would be cool in TG. But in terms of IRL realism these are all just mainly aspect ratios and lenses and such, nothing to do with the actual real world itself but how its perceived. But I think all these "mediums" per se are based on the same visual spectrums.

[René]

I think some of my commentary has been lost in the translation, and my poor English probably plays a part in that as well. What I mean is (I hope I get it right this time) that photos are considered realistic. Flashlicht is something you will only see in photos. So flashlicht is associated with photos, and seeing flashlicht in a render will make you more likely to think it is a photo. Ergo: realism.

[Dune]

I think we're all right

[PabloMack]

There's actually an animation.

https://blenderartists.org/t/animated-mundane-girl-test/1280215

[WAS]

Movement looks really nice. Clothes don't know what to do with themselves though. Lol

And yeah the flash, which helps flatten the scene, allows for more realism as we aren't seeing as much defined shadow and specular, which is the easiest to do wrong imo.

Kinda same in Terragen. Stone by default has no reflection, but does IRL, so a lot of landscapes come out "chalky" without stone highlights or deep shadows catching enviro light better.