Realism versus Imagination what you preffer?

Seeing that lot of industry go to realism without any creation part involved , like imagination , script , real art concept not just straight shooting …

There are this questions :

Hyper realism ? Or all from imagination with a plot and some things that don`t look like a straight picture with no sense of art ?

Seeing so much of realism in games and movies , got really bored , cause reality it is what wee all see all day!

An Pixar animated movie ,or Blur studio it is more entertaining that Iron Man and all X Men (not referring to comics)… Why ?

In this days all movies look the same : shooting , a little sex scene , stupid acting without a story . And same thing in the game industry , what happened with thinking?

Art is about creation not copying and copying and copying … what happened ?

and a little help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination

edited …

i agree with you on many points you’ve made, and at times a good combination of both imagination and realism hits the spot, such as Portal by valve, and a few movies i can’t think of off the top of my head.

It’s quite possible that the reason movies are staying very similar to one another, as well as games, is that the community enjoys such styles of games, and to make them change their mind by presenting something original can be quite a challenge.

just ma 2 cents.
pce

I think the problem is art is not the same for all of us, you may not consider it art but others may. Define art and most people will say something different.

Sometimes I go for more realism, sometimes more imagination. In fact, many famous artists went for imagination the most.

The ideal thing is a something very imaginative, and yet realistic enough for “willing suspension of disbelief”. Things that are totally impossible and absurd are more enjoyable when they are believable.

Work can be both realistic and imaginative. I’m currently working through tutorials on digital matte painting by Dylan Cole, and his process is to paint a concept image, and then apply photographic textures to his painting same as we can for 3D objects, often transforming them radically in the process. Result, realistic realization of an imaginative concept.He did matte painting for LOTR, Chronicles of Riddick, Superman Returns, etc

I myself am appalled by the incessant quest for hyper-realism as if it’s the be-all and end-all of 3d. There’s just seem no end in the search for better rendering engines.

Some even talk about things like Renderman-compliant and all that. Well, Pixar is not even in the business of producing hyper-realism, which is synonymous to what you see in photos. I personally refer to Pixar-animated productions as “exaggerated realism.” There’s simply nothing in there that resembles what you see in real life, which I prefer seeing more rather than copying everything down to the last detail… Quite simply if you want to so much aim for hyper-realism, why not just get a camera and shoot it? What’s the point? I don’t think that’s the way to be remembered as a 3d creator. No personal touch, art, nothing. Just simple copying.

EDIT: I’m referring to still images. When it comes to films with live actors, well, that’s a different ballgame…

@Tyrell I think you are confusing hyper-realism with photo-realism. Photo realism is when you make an image appear as if it where a photography. Hyper-realism is an exaggeration of the real adding more detail to a realistic work than a photo could capture I refer you to the work of Chuck Close ‘John’ a traditional portrait done in the hyper real style you will see more detail in that work than any photography could capture.

The battle between realism and stylized art is not one confined to 3D. I love realism I find it a tough and inspiring battle to wage to try and get something to look real.

Lets not confuse a style of art with good story telling. Movies are about story telling doesn’t matter whether you go of a stylised or realistic format if the story not right it doesn’t work. Pixar’s focus has always been on story telling that is why their movies work I could name a few stylised works that have not worked as movies but what would be the point.

it depends. for scifi it has to be imagination, there is no real yeat. for documentariy/ historical real is the way to go, even in games. (brothers in arms for example).

Another thing to add the thread discussion :

Think about in this way : Realism - obsession for detail; Imagination - less obsession less detail -> more creation.

*egan The ideal thing is a something very imaginative, and yet realistic enough for “willing suspension of disbelief”. Things that are totally impossible and absurd are more enjoyable when they are believable.

If things are going to be to believable then let see : you have a movie with crimes and believable 100% made in so way to muck up your mind and believe you are a criminal ? Cause you will end being one.

Think twice before you say “Things that are totally impossible and absurd are more enjoyable when they are believable.”

The comment made me think more like “a dragon shadowing a pickup truck on the last road to Babylon” with enough detail to make it believable.

(The most excellent pic I’ve ever seen, BTW)

Neonstarlight Quote:
Originally Posted by Numarul7 http://blenderartists.org/forum/images/ba-buttons/viewpost.gif

*egan The ideal thing is a something very imaginative, and yet realistic enough for “willing suspension of disbelief”. Things that are totally impossible and absurd are more enjoyable when they are believable.

If things are going to be to believable then let see : you have a movie with crimes and believable 100% made in so way to muck up your mind and believe you are a criminal ? Cause you will end being one.

Think twice before you say “Things that are totally impossible and absurd are more enjoyable when they are believable.”

The comment made me think more like “a dragon shadowing a pickup truck on the last road to Babylon” with enough detail to make it believable.

(The most excellent pic I’ve ever seen, BTW)

:))) To bad sci-fi is not so popular compared with junk made movies :)))

Many bad artist too. ;):wink:

Just goes to show that we;re not very advanced in conceptual thinking in the
plastic arts; but, boy, do we love to LABEL things…

so is this a thread complaing about realistic renderers?? i think you’ll find most people want both imagination and realism. why else do we have fluid control, raytracing, ao?

i often find that the most powerful pieces of art i’ve seen start with realism and go from there, eg the current bwc winner.

would bbb have so many rave reviews if @andy et al had simply modelled all the fur and grass?

A. A 3d image
B. A 3d image resembling reality
C. A 3d image that looks photo-real
D. A 3d image that is an exaggeration of reality

This is all subjective, but that is how I categorize them. At category B is where the vast majority of 3d users reside. It’s somewhat tolerable, already impressive, but still doesn’t look photo-real. At C is where a lot of us seem to want to end up in. This is what I call hyper-realism or ultra-realism. If it looks like a photo, then it’s a photo. If it looks like a photo, but not really a photo, then it must have attained realism’s pinnacle. That’s why I call it hyper/ultra realism.

I don’t know about you but at D is where some of us want to be. I could also call it caricaturized realism like the ones we see in Pixar films which have distinct properties one of which is high contrast between light and dark values. The best and most impressive renders that I’ve seen in 3d galleries are in this category, be it a human model, product design, interior shot, etc. Some may call it stylized, but this is also where artists are free to bend rules and go beyond reality.

Realism is impressive and imagination is art. (Loosely speaking that is, as art cannot be readily defined)
IMHO, the artist’s duty is to experiment and create.
I see a hyper-real render and marvel at the skill and beauty of the piece.
But if it is lacking in art (as previously defined in this post,) then after admiring, I move on and soon forget what I saw, as it had no lasting impression.
However, if the piece is not realistic at some level, or at least visually appealing, I won’t even bother to look at it, let alone look hard enough to see the underlying meaning of what the artist is trying to create.

Of course, the best mix of reality and imagination depends entirely on the artist and the audience, but there must be a mix.

EDIT: I would switch “reality” for “believability” but that’s just me.

Thinking that imagination is separated from realism, and that realism can’t include imagination truly showcase a lack of imagination.

But that doesn’t mean everything that is realist is interesting…the same way that most of what you call ‘imagination’ is crap.

I second that, Ecks.