is this a picture of a real person or is it computer generated?

[CurtSibling]

I sort of agree with you.
Coming from a CGI artist employment background, I would say the realism depends on the individual artist.

The claim that CG will never be as 'real' as living models is not accurate...

Seeing the applications available, I think it will and it reaching it.

As I said in ten years or so, we will see great stuff.

The technology is still in the general infancy...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

To me it looks like part of it might be 'real' and other parts computer generated. Her eyes and most of her face are clearly cg.

 

[Hitro]

The problem is that the picture is in black and white and also that we are getting used to "photoshopped" real pictures. And the line between an edited real picture and a smartly presented picture of a CGI character is very blurry.

I agree with Curt that technology will improve to a point where one will no longer be able to realise the differences in resolutions as computers and TVs present them, but bear in mind that while TV and photographs might seem quite real they are still far away from the real thing.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Yep, the hair is still a dead giveaway, but they're much better with adding imperfections to the face and keeping it asymmetrical (very few people have anything approaching symmetric faces)

 

[Perfection]

If either of those Curt posted were posted in something other than the "real or fake" thread, no one would've noticed they weren't real.

I'd bet the first one would be figured out but the second, most likely not.

 

[h4ppy]

i think #3 is real, #2 & #4 computer generated

I disagree. (the arms were weird in 1, the breasts were weird in 2, and the shoulders were weird in 3.)

edit: Oh and the skin on Curt's first pic is way to shiney.

 

[handyandy]

the main problem for me is the shadowing, and lighting on the face. It just doesnt "feel" right. I also have a problem with the eyes, not quite sure what though, i think the reflections and the alignment.

 

[Sickman]

I also have a problem with the eyes, not quite sure what though, i think the reflections and the alignment.

If you look my edited picture number 2 it shows that the eyes look more natural in the mirrored picture (alignment) which is strange. Could be because of the original is 3d model.
But the reflection is plain obvious. A child might have eyes like that reflecting only small amount of light.

 

[Mise]

Here is a more advanced version from the same guys who made the headphones gal...!

I don't believe that's computer generated...

 

[Perfection]

I don't believe that's computer generated...

Why not?

And check your damn PMs

 

[Mise]

Why not?

And check your damn PMs

There's nothing about it that doesn't look real.

And I don't wanna go after Mr 3 Second Stick Man again

 

[Birdjaguar]

The question looming on the horizon is whether or not people will prefer to watch CG images in movies rather than Tom Cruse and Angelina Jolie. Once we can create our "stars" cost alone will drive the entertainment industry to use CGI. Japan has its first CGI celebrity I believe, but I don't know her name.

 

[nonconformist]

I'd rather watch Gigli than Tom Cruise.

 

[Chieftess]

The one Curt posted does look the most realistic. (I wonder if it really is a person, and they just used that person to model the above image with)

But, the 3 things that seem to stick out with most CGI-generated-people is:

1 - Clothing is far too smooth (and leathery). There's no lighting, shadows, creases. It looks like it's an inch thick rather than a milimeter thick.

2 - Skin texture. No blemishes, no wrinkles, etc. (Especially the nose, fingers (no knuckles!!!), subtle facial lighting, smoothness of the neck -- no neck is THAT smooth! Stringy hair is a give-away, too.)

3 - The eyes. In the picture with the CG person in the mask (and several others before it), the area around the eye just doesn't seem to fit right. It looks a little too smooth, plus, the skin actually curves inward a bit from the cheekbone in a real person).

 

[toh6wy]

After 30 seconds, it has become obvious that it's CGI... she looks too pale and too perfect - or at least her skin doesn't seem quite textured enough.

...although at first it was a little hard to tell.

 

[Vietcong]

who the hell is dumb enofe to have voted yes????


that last pic looks alot more real, but still far from it.. look at the eyes, lips, skin, and hair. most notibly the eye brows.

 

[Chieftess]

And to think that 10 years ago, graphics we're seeing today in the gaming arena were just being made with CGI back then. Remember Disney's remake of Cinderella? The ballroom used CGI. Think about games 10 years from now, or about the military applications - Virtual Espionage (or sabotage -- i.e., pretend to be someone important...).

BTW, there is software that re-creates the human voice, and words based on recordings that a person has said. They've done that already in some commercials a few years back. Maybe 100 years from now, some rouge state who's dictator just died could use that type of technology to make the people think he's still alive.

 

[E-Raser]

... Maybe 100 years from now, some rouge state who's dictator just died could use that type of technology to make the people think he's still alive.

So Cuba does NOT already?

 

[GenMarshall]

The one Curt posted does look the most realistic. (I wonder if it really is a person, and they just used that person to model the above image with)

But, the 3 things that seem to stick out with most CGI-generated-people is:

1 - Clothing is far too smooth (and leathery). There's no lighting, shadows, creases. It looks like it's an inch thick rather than a milimeter thick.

2 - Skin texture. No blemishes, no wrinkles, etc. (Especially the nose, fingers (no knuckles!!!), subtle facial lighting, smoothness of the neck -- no neck is THAT smooth! Stringy hair is a give-away, too.)

3 - The eyes. In the picture with the CG person in the mask (and several others before it), the area around the eye just doesn't seem to fit right. It looks a little too smooth, plus, the skin actually curves inward a bit from the cheekbone in a real person).

So what you are saying is that they can make this picture look more realistic?

I thought we are already at that level of realism with General Grevous .

 

[h4ppy]

So what you are saying is that they can make this picture look more realistic?

I thought we are already at that level of realism with General Grevous .

Its pretty hard to make that GitS picture look less realistic, CG. Oh and Geivous was good but too shiney.