I think there’s more to it than that. As I said, I’ve narrowed it down to the light falloff characteristics of Cycles vs. other render engines (that is not to say that every single render engine out there is better than Cycles). It seems to be a bit harder for Cycles to mimic the organic falloff of, say, film, than for another render engine. This, at least to me, is visible even in smaller settings, like this one for instance which, is fantastic work for sure, but where IMHO the light falloff seems harsh and “digital” for lack of a better term.
But IMHO where this becomes more perceivable is in large settings. Here’s another example, this is from BlenderMarket, this developer offers a variety of landscapes. I am sure his goal of his examples was to offer as much photorealism and sense of scale as possible, and yet, personally I find all the examples to have the feel of a small model. That is to say there is nothing wrong with the collection itself, I’m sure the geometry is sound. I think it has more to do with the light falloff of Cycles which contributes to some of this lack of scale (among other things).
As a “baseline” I often reference this World Creator/Octane video as a good comparison of similar types of landscapes. At least to me, the difference is quite palpable. I think it’s not in the more obvious parts of the render, as much as some of the nuances in how the light falloff curve is handled by Cycles. As a professional colorist, and one who has spent countless hours trying to adjust these nuances in post, I am not convinced that all of these examples are strictly the result of a different compositing/post production process.
