Why aim for photorealism?

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

I know that many of you want to make your stuff look photo-real. It’s trendy. “Final Fantasy” used it, and so many of you want to use it.

But really, why do you need it? If you needed photo-realism, you could go outside and do it, not just model it on a computer. So why model for hours just to get something that looks natural?

I think 3D suites were made because you wanted something that doesn’t exist. So why make it look like it does? Just so you can fool people? That’s a pretty stupid goal. You don’t need to fool people with an image, you’re supposed to make them suspend disbelief, and I’m pretty sure there’s a difference.

I brought up “Final Fantasy” earlier, and I think it makes a good point. It “bombed,” making something like $31 million, from a budget around $131 million. And you want to know why that happened when “Shrek,” another CGI film, made millions and has a sequel coming out soon despite the fact that it was a crappy movie, and “Final Fantasy” bombed and the closest it will ever have to a sequel is the recent “Final Flight Of The Osiris?” Simple. “Shrek” was obviously animated, and audiences knew it. So they took their kids to see it, and were delighted somehow with a film that wasn’t funny. “Final Fantasy,” however, was darker, PG-13, and above all, too realistic. The public probably thought that it was another overbloated CGI-fest, and while they were right on one count, they were wrong when they thought it was the usual “actors-fighting-aliens” thing.

Also, “Final Flight Of The Osiris” doesn’t fit into “The Animatrix.” The rest of “The Animatrix” is 2D, hand-drawn shorts. “Final Flight Of The Osiris” looks like it was made in live action. Thus, it looks like they’ve misplaced it into a collection of shorts entitled “The ANIMATrix.” It’s called that because it’s entirely animated, but if somebody doesn’t know that when they see “FFOTO,” they immediately think something’s wrong.

I’m not knocking photo-realism. I think it’s a cool idea to have a few people at least get fooled by thinking you’re showing them a photo. However, why do you need it so much?

2

actually, you are wrong about Animatirx being all 2D except Osiris. Most of Renaissance was 3D, same for Matriculated and some bits of Program.

Martin

3

But “Osiris” is the most obviously 3D.

4

I think that when someone aim for photorealism it’s simply a challenge. I mean, working for lots of hour on a pic then you show it to someone and he think it’s real because it’s so well made! I would be proud of a pic that have an impact like this.

Also photoreal can be use to show something that will be there in the future but is not there. Like architectural building…

It’s the same thing as saying: Why do you do sci-fi stuff? Why do you do Fantasy model? etc… it’s a style…

5

I agree that photorealism is not always a good goal. But I liked Shrek. I can’t figure out from your post what your opinions of Final Fantasy and Final Flight of the Osiris are, but I didn’t like Final Fantasy at all, and Final Flight of the Osiris was kind of cool but didn’t have enough of a plot.

What I’m wondering is how soon there will be live action movies with some digital human characters. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. Unless it has and I missed it…

6

Personally I think that only reason for doing photoreal art (in any form, be it regular drawing or 3D) is the challenge of it. It’s nice to overwhelm oneself, when you can notice that oh, i did not know, that I can do that.

But then again, I like myself anime style (Akira is just awesome). I am not expert in it, but I’ve noticed, that sometimes I do Anime style drawings just for the heck of it and that is a same kind of challenge.

Final Fantasy. Photoreal. Yes. I’ve seen it. It had it moments, art wise, other that that, it was terrible film. I like games better. But it still was not real. You could see, that it was 3D graphics. Example: Only Aki has long hair, overyone else has short, unanimted hair. It would have taken far much time to animate realistic hair movement for everyone. Photrealisim is har to achieve.

Shrek. Cartoonish. Exelent film. Nothing more, nothing less. I liked it. in every aspect. I think that art was much better in Shrek than in Final Fantasy.

Sorry about this long rant, of somebody read this throuh. :smiley:

7

The importance of Photorealism are needed when tha scene was shot and now its needs some cars added to the background or shots of cities that were to big for budget to be made are needed.
Maybe someone is getting their kitchen remodel a Pre-Visual modeler needs to have the ability to make new cabinets and sinks look photoreal and having them blend into photo of the kitchen. These are area where you don’t want the “CG” look to stand out. Commercial layout is another real important area where photorealism is needed.
Photo-realism is needed for:
those “impossible shots”,
areas where objects need to be added to real photos/films and pass off for real.
Pre-visuals of finish products.
It is the need for the above that cause folks to use those tools make movies like “Final Fantasy” and the “Final Flight of Osiris”

8

Phtorealism is also a good way of building your skills. If you can creat photoreal scenes, you can probably create most of the things you can imagine.

9

photorealism is a goal for use in real life motion pictures… for example, instead of buying a ton of cars and trucks for an explosion scene, they could be modeled, not only can 3d effects be cooler than real life, but there is no danger in wrecking a 3d car or making a 3d explosion…3d is also used for things that arent even in real life! like the hulk! or any other cg composite movie character

cube fan, you see examples every single day as to why photorealism is important, you just dont pay any attention at all

10

ditto

If you are able to model a photoreal scene with a human character you will be able to model a toon cube.

If your able to model a toon cube you are not necessarily able to model a photoreal scene with a human character.

11

Why do photoreal 3d instead of just using photography?

To avoid having to hire unionized aliens. :slight_smile:

The real world is our primary shared reference.
But ofcourse your style is up to you.

12

I can see the quesition of Photorealism coming up with all the hype of a newbie killing him/herself to learn it without learning the basic of modelling.
With our replies we prove why blender should support it and why in the future artists might need it.
But I do see a lot focus placed on it instead of the basic of 3D art. Its like do true photo-real stll life without knowing the basic colors or the foundations of art.
The quesition is one of a “true challenge”, why the aim for photorealism? Are those focusing on it understand the art? Are new 3D artist so caught up in the beautiful, romatic renders of the Higher skilled artists that they loose site of the foundation that got them there?
With that quesition I say there should be no focus, since it can cause confusion and make and artist give up if it is taken on too early.

13

I read some article a while ago in Wired (I think it was…) that they can make the characters look to real, so they try not to do it…hmm, if I just remember why %|

14

hmm…well, if you ask me, its ALL about the art…stills, anims, photoreal, surreal, whatever. I do both photoreal and surreal…i just do whatever one i feel like doing at the moment, you know? a big reason for doing photreal for me though, is the challenge! i love to do challenging models! i find it alot of fun actually…but alot of my blender art is also completely abstract…what im saying is, weither its realistic or not…it all depends on the actual ART of it! Just be yourself in your art, and in life…cubefan, youve been trying to decide what you want to do lately, and my best advice(even if you come up with some witty insult about it :wink: ) is just do whatever comes to your head…who cares what i think? who cares what everyone else thinks you should do? do what YOU want to do…and as always, keep it funky, and

Just be yourself in your art, and in life

TUDBZD69 over and out! [>] [>] [>]

15

Photorealism isn’t so much a “type” of art but more of a technique.

Two ways of looking at it, one is that yes it is a type of art, another is photorealism if used in many commercials/movies to supplement or to fill in parts in film. starwars, matrix, certain juice commercials (ehm…the one where the mom catches the vase on her foot like a football(soccer for amercians who are dumb)(<—i love parentheses!!). it’s mandatory here, because the watcher is supposed to think it’s real.

my thoughts.

16

yeah, good point dittohead…i mean, theres lots of times when you have to do photorealism…take the matrix:reloaded(god, i loved that movie! :slight_smile: ), i dont think when neo was fighting all of those mr.smiths you could have replactated THAT in reallife at all! photoreal CG makes what the audiance thinks is impossible, possible…plus, like blengine said, you have no risk of any human life or anything like that when you make a CG explosion in a movie…

TUDBZD69 over and outos(the freshmaker)! [>] [>] [>]

17

just one of my ideas :wink:

sometimes it is interesting, to fake reality - i think myself that just modeling after a reference and copying nature is boring. maybe i do some day a scene out of “brave new world” with a not yet born baby in a bottle … the point would be, to do it as reallistic as i can, for making it shocking :wink:

18

as far i know 3d was first introduced to computers around the late 60s for some research on computer graphics…but nobody took it seriously untill spielberg used it for creating those dinosaurs in jurassic park which just amazed everybody.since then we were following his path, using CG mostly for movies,ads and broadcasting purposes.cg evolved and grown stronger since then to make the scenes in movies more and more photoreal.so here we see that our only aim was to fool people…to show them what actually was not there.but in these current years we have seen that there are many 3d-artists who create cg only as an art…photorealism is not an issue here…something like the impressionists,who did not try to fake photoreality in canvas.i think cg is capable of doing much greater things than only faking reality.the sooner we realise it the better is it for us and ofcourse for CG.CG should be used like a different media for art…just like a cheasel or a canvas.

19

hey kos, whats wrong with photoreality?! sometimes photorealistic pictures look pretty damn cool! But yeah, i agree, like i was saying earlier, it doesnt matter weither its photoreal, surreal, whatever its the actual artistic expression thats important. But moviewise, i see nothing wrong with what you call “fooling” people with CG art…CG art can show the audiance things they never have even dreamed of before, it can really inspire people and open there minds, and above all, entertain them! oh well, just my thoughts on the issue…

TUDBZD69 over and out [>] [>] [>]

20

Yeah, I agree in that it’s cool, when people are doing special efects and insane stunts parts with the help of 3D art, and that would not work without people capable to exact photorealisms.

Personally I think it’s pretty damn stupid to kill couple of stuntmans just becuase of a medicore action flick (If I recall right, one stunman died in the filming of XXX, that Vin Diesel flick)

What comes to photoreal art itself, if accept it fully. Camera can be powerfull tool in the hands of a person, who can field it. And sometimes it just necesary to be able to draw your surroundigs in terms of photoreal, think of those archeologist, which did diggins before the invention handy, compact cameras. They had to draw everything they saw.