http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fake_or_foto/quiz.html
I got 10/10 first time! It's best to view the zoomed in picture.
I got 10/10 first time! It's best to view the zoomed in picture.
Fun CG vs Real test
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Fun CG vs Real test i got 9/10, missed on the the BMW. It looks real to me- even the road looks real.
shawnus
shawnus
hmm I only got 8/10 but thats better than 7/10 - uh I guess.
IPete2.
IPete2.
Shawnus: The BMW was obvious; the fence was just *too* parallel.
I got 10/10 then 3/4 on the second lot.
I got 10/10 then 3/4 on the second lot.
Cyg, yep the fence gave it away for me too.
Ipete2: Tsk Tsk, and so experienced in the field ;-)
Ipete2: Tsk Tsk, and so experienced in the field ;-)
The license plate on the BMW is a dead giveaway as well. 10/10 and 4/4 in the bonus round. Too easy :)
/PetBom
/PetBom
10/10 and 4/4 (I was quite surprised!)
On the BMW it wasn't the fence for me, it was the stuff behind the fence. Out of focus stuff either looks real or doesn't for some reason.
On the BMW it wasn't the fence for me, it was the stuff behind the fence. Out of focus stuff either looks real or doesn't for some reason.
Last time I did this I got 'em all. That was possibly 4-5 years ago, or at least it feels about that long.
This time I got half, I felt they were all cg. I had clearly not appreciated just how mediocre some practitioners of the art of photography had become.
Progress? Doubtful!
This time I got half, I felt they were all cg. I had clearly not appreciated just how mediocre some practitioners of the art of photography had become.
Progress? Doubtful!
Cool. Got 7/10 then after carefully looking got 10/10.
!!
I got 10 :)
Then 2/4... oh well.
I got 10 :)
Then 2/4... oh well.
I got 7/10 too, but then again I rushed it, got bored after lookin at the Beamer. Cheated through the first round and did the bonus. Got 4 out of 4.
You could easily tell the metal pipe was fake, the reflection map didnt include the dude taking the photo and the lighting on the floor looked way too smooth.
The glass of water is definately real, if you look at how its cut out jaggedly. If it was CG it would blend nicely with the background.
The lizard is real, its got a grainy appearence to the image. It you look at the feet detail it looks hand painted.
The medieval dude looks real, but his skin is too soft in appearence. The background is out of focus, and his hair and upper lip looks fake.
You could easily tell the metal pipe was fake, the reflection map didnt include the dude taking the photo and the lighting on the floor looked way too smooth.
The glass of water is definately real, if you look at how its cut out jaggedly. If it was CG it would blend nicely with the background.
The lizard is real, its got a grainy appearence to the image. It you look at the feet detail it looks hand painted.
The medieval dude looks real, but his skin is too soft in appearence. The background is out of focus, and his hair and upper lip looks fake.
The medieval dude looks real, but his skin is too soft in appearence. The background is out of focus, and his hair and upper lip looks fake.
I just knew it was CG because I've seen that same stupid render EVERYWHERE! 9/10. That stuff is insane. I don't have the patience to do that.
I just knew it was CG because I've seen that same stupid render EVERYWHERE!
Lol same here, had to come up with something that sounded fancy :P
9/10... Missed the egg whisks.
4/4 out of the bonus set.
4/4 out of the bonus set.
Got them but i had to concentrate and there was also some luck with it. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's cg or real because reality can look kind of strange. Such things as the car are far easier to get when you know where to look after.
Missed the egg whisks.
unlucky dude, they seemed pretty obvious CG to me, I found some of the other stuff much harder. Hey, i give you some cg...little performance test from yesterday... ;O)
http://spielwiese.marune.de/_uni/_tmp/netz2.html
controls:
b,n,m,mousewheel,rmb,mousemovement
http://spielwiese.marune.de/_uni/_tmp/netz2.html
controls:
b,n,m,mousewheel,rmb,mousemovement
That was easy... The only ones that were kind of hard were in the bonus round. the first and 3rd ones... I almost got the first one wrong. I don't want to spoil it. But it was all the background things in the reflections that was making me think wrong... In the end. It was not the reflections that made me pick the right answer... it was the marbles themselves.
In the 3rd one, it was all about the splashes along the glass.
The real ones were obviously the hardest to tell. Because you had to rule out things. But in hindsight. It was even easier. I could have went with my gut and gotten 13 out of 14.
In the 3rd one, it was all about the splashes along the glass.
The real ones were obviously the hardest to tell. Because you had to rule out things. But in hindsight. It was even easier. I could have went with my gut and gotten 13 out of 14.
I found the third one in the first round more luck. This could have been real or not depending on how much effort one has taken into the lightning. Same with number 9 which could also have been a good sss work.
10/10 first time, and 3/4 in the second test. Computer graphics have come a long way, but there is some more to go.
taumel
I disagree... While you certainly could create something almost like it. There are imperfections that give it away... those come down to artistic skill, not computer power.
some things look planned or 'right' when you see things that don't exactly look right, but are natural at the same time, is what tells a real image.
In image 3. the topmost curve is slightly bent-out... either a manufacturing mistake or from use (likely use, if it was ever used) There are other things. in the lighting. The background could be more-or-less duplicated. It is the screw itself that is the tell.
in 9. I knew right away it was real. For 2 reasons. It would be so easy to make digitally that it wouldn't be amazing, as thusly, was an obvious red-herring. And also, there are imperfections in the glass. I would expect there not to be, in a render. I wouldn't expect someone to go through the trouble of altering the geometery of a glass plane with all those colored bubbles in there. It would be a detail not missed.... Specially since you would never get such a close look at this, since it isn't really a feature.
It is also important to note, I have never ever been fooled into thinking a CG image was real. Not once.
I might be fooled into falsely calling something real fake, but it would be being fooled into it... based on doubt. But I would never falsely pin a CG image as real..
Feel free to test that. It is a challenge
I disagree... While you certainly could create something almost like it. There are imperfections that give it away... those come down to artistic skill, not computer power.
some things look planned or 'right' when you see things that don't exactly look right, but are natural at the same time, is what tells a real image.
In image 3. the topmost curve is slightly bent-out... either a manufacturing mistake or from use (likely use, if it was ever used) There are other things. in the lighting. The background could be more-or-less duplicated. It is the screw itself that is the tell.
in 9. I knew right away it was real. For 2 reasons. It would be so easy to make digitally that it wouldn't be amazing, as thusly, was an obvious red-herring. And also, there are imperfections in the glass. I would expect there not to be, in a render. I wouldn't expect someone to go through the trouble of altering the geometery of a glass plane with all those colored bubbles in there. It would be a detail not missed.... Specially since you would never get such a close look at this, since it isn't really a feature.
It is also important to note, I have never ever been fooled into thinking a CG image was real. Not once.
I might be fooled into falsely calling something real fake, but it would be being fooled into it... based on doubt. But I would never falsely pin a CG image as real..
Feel free to test that. It is a challenge
No, regarding both pictures this is totally doable with a talented person a modern renderer and techniques like displacement mapping generated by fractal/special noises, subsurface scattering, high resolution, proper post production (if needed at all)... All the imperfection you were refering to is no problem for these two cases and some others which were shown there. It's only a matter of how much effort you put into it.
The thing i agree with you is that it's easier to find out the real ones in these examples. But this is only true for these examples and if you haven't dealt with other high quality renderings as then you get unsure what is real and what not.
The red-herring strategy is questionable as it only helps you with sets which are setup with weak renderings or obvious placed pictures.
It wouldn't bring you any further if you have a set of well done renderings combined with real ones which fit more together. I bet you won't have a chance to really distinguish them correctly by not guessing.
The thing i agree with you is that it's easier to find out the real ones in these examples. But this is only true for these examples and if you haven't dealt with other high quality renderings as then you get unsure what is real and what not.
The red-herring strategy is questionable as it only helps you with sets which are setup with weak renderings or obvious placed pictures.
It wouldn't bring you any further if you have a set of well done renderings combined with real ones which fit more together. I bet you won't have a chance to really distinguish them correctly by not guessing.
10 / 10
Actualy it was easy to tell just by looking at the shadows. they are too perfect.
Actualy it was easy to tell just by looking at the shadows. they are too perfect.
Taumel
I don't see you linking me to photos and renderings YOU think are well done.
It isn't a matter of what is doable, but what people do. No one making the corkscrew would bother to make such subtle flaws in the basic geometry... You have to be looking at the object for a little while and trying to make sure it isn't CG for you to notice. So there is no need to add that kind of imperfection... specially for a display model which is the only possible use for a picture of a corkscrew like that.
As for the glass.. I'm not talking about global imperfections. I'm talking about a slight break in this spot and a little ring. (possibly where a glass color part broke off)
Again... why would you add that in this view, it can only be real because you would want a CG to show the best side of your product, and also, no one would bother to put in that realism... Also, there is a level of missing aesthetic in a real item.
The fake will always look 'better' because an artist made it.
there are lots of tells in CG work. And I have never ever falsely called a CG, real.
I don't see you linking me to photos and renderings YOU think are well done.
It isn't a matter of what is doable, but what people do. No one making the corkscrew would bother to make such subtle flaws in the basic geometry... You have to be looking at the object for a little while and trying to make sure it isn't CG for you to notice. So there is no need to add that kind of imperfection... specially for a display model which is the only possible use for a picture of a corkscrew like that.
As for the glass.. I'm not talking about global imperfections. I'm talking about a slight break in this spot and a little ring. (possibly where a glass color part broke off)
Again... why would you add that in this view, it can only be real because you would want a CG to show the best side of your product, and also, no one would bother to put in that realism... Also, there is a level of missing aesthetic in a real item.
The fake will always look 'better' because an artist made it.
there are lots of tells in CG work. And I have never ever falsely called a CG, real.
You're not allowed to show off all the graphics you have seen! ;O)
But if you take the time and visit some of the better renderers, physical lightning engines then you should be able to find some stuff.
I disagree with your aesthetic argumentation and that fake always looks better as a) photos are real and some or them are art as far as i know and b) as said before it's up to the artist to make it real if it's the goal for a certain rendering and technically it's possible too.
But if you take the time and visit some of the better renderers, physical lightning engines then you should be able to find some stuff.
I disagree with your aesthetic argumentation and that fake always looks better as a) photos are real and some or them are art as far as i know and b) as said before it's up to the artist to make it real if it's the goal for a certain rendering and technically it's possible too.
I do renders, I also do photography, worse still I do the odd phake when it's absolutely what's needed too. I didn't do so well - 5/10. With decent sized images I bet I'd have done a whole lot better, but that would not be fully realistic in such a set up either! ;O)
I'm not completely short on ability or judgement, people are frequently taken in by what I do, and that is what's meant to happen. But I have to wonder if there wasn't just a bit of work done on some of the images that was not part of the original process. I noticed a few things which could suggest it to be the case too.
After all, it's Autodesk's site; They're just promoting products here. It's marketing, and that's got nothing to do with reality either. At best it's a bit of fun.
Play nice peeps.
I'm not completely short on ability or judgement, people are frequently taken in by what I do, and that is what's meant to happen. But I have to wonder if there wasn't just a bit of work done on some of the images that was not part of the original process. I noticed a few things which could suggest it to be the case too.
After all, it's Autodesk's site; They're just promoting products here. It's marketing, and that's got nothing to do with reality either. At best it's a bit of fun.
Play nice peeps.
Disagree with me all you want. I got a perfect score on this, and all the is this real or CG posts on this forum if anyone remembers.
All you need to do is find one image you can show me that you know is CG and 3 other like photos that you can't tell the difference of... And I will tell you which is CG.
All you need to do is find one image you can show me that you know is CG and 3 other like photos that you can't tell the difference of... And I will tell you which is CG.
Hey i'm not your mom. Think about what i've said or find something on your own or stay with your opinion.
You aren't? When did you plan to tell me, mother. When father died? Who is my real mother? How could you do this too me...
I hate you!
j/k
I hate you!
j/k