TRUE/FALSE?

Submit your own resources!

Allyn "Mr_Bloodworth" Mcelrath   (Jun 18, 2006 at 16:15 GMT)

Photo and 3d render.

Chris \"C2\" Byars   (Jun 18, 2006 at 16:17 GMT)

Photo.

Tom Feni   (Jun 18, 2006 at 16:22 GMT)

photo shopped

* mainly because nature is more chaotic and also all the flowers are facing the camera, "Smile" :)
Edited on Jun 18, 2006 16:25 GMT

Dave D   (Jun 18, 2006 at 16:29 GMT)

I think it's a 3d render, 2 reasons:

1.) The leaves on the flower look a little glossy. It reflects the light source a little to much.

2.) If it was a photo, then this wouldn't be much of a plan.

=)

Stefan Lundmark   (Jun 18, 2006 at 17:23 GMT)

Well you're asking whether it is a photo or a 3d render, not both, so I'm saying photo.

Treb Connell (formerlyMasterTreb   (Jun 18, 2006 at 17:36 GMT)

I'm going to go with 3d render because it just looks like that to me. The stuff around the flowers looks more like a picture though so I'm not quite sure...

Anton Bursch   (Jun 18, 2006 at 17:55 GMT)

It's obvious that this is a 3D Render. Anyone can see that by simply looking at the ground under the vegitation. There's not a single cigarette butt, beer bottle, candy wrapper or condom to be seen.

James Thompson   (Jun 18, 2006 at 18:21 GMT)

Edited photo - There are too many things on the ground like twigs and stones and all are in the right places, so either you rewrote the physics engine and the rendering engines or you cheated:
Your profile does not list 3d modeller or similar as a skill either

What is it?

Sean H.   (Jun 18, 2006 at 19:04 GMT)

well this definitely looks like a photo. I'm hoping it's a 3d scene so it'll have some relevance to something...

Vashner   (Jun 18, 2006 at 19:06 GMT)

It's a photo.. Nice green thumb.

Todd Pickens   (Jun 18, 2006 at 19:46 GMT)

true or false? ...False

Dennis De Marco   (Jun 18, 2006 at 20:12 GMT)

It's the new foliage replicator in TSE

Ben Ewing   (Jun 18, 2006 at 21:04 GMT)

Photoshopped photo?

Tom Spilman   (Jun 18, 2006 at 21:56 GMT)

Photo

Tim Hutcheson   (Jun 18, 2006 at 23:06 GMT)

3D Render. If you scale the image up in PS, you can see some blocky artifacts in the shadow regions on the left side.

Treb Connell (formerlyMasterTreb   (Jun 18, 2006 at 23:11 GMT)

I want an answer, this is bugging me its a good 50/50 split between people...

Mincetro   (Jun 18, 2006 at 23:36 GMT)

I'd say render, as theres artifacting present on the backdrop that isn't present on the flowers. Also, unless the soil is damp, the colour/shading should be unifor from the top of the image to the small patch on the right. Theres a bit of unfocusing at the top of the image, which brings Photo to my mind though.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 19, 2006 at 00:45 GMT)

Photo with some photoshop work. Why: some leaves dont go through another like it would be a mesh.

Ward De Langhe   (Jun 19, 2006 at 07:29 GMT)

photo

if its a render, then its made by using a lot of billboards, with photo-based textures on it. In that case its also a photo in my opinion.
Edited on Jun 19, 2006 07:30 GMT

Vincent BILLET   (Jun 19, 2006 at 07:53 GMT)

So results are :
Photo : 6
Edited photo : 5
3D render : 7
Wow ! good repartition !
It's a photo taken by my father during his hollydays. There is no edition work on this photo. When I saw this photo I was really surprised by the beauty of these flowers. I though it was not real flowers, but these flowers are real flowers.
Ha... mother nature can produce some "render like" flowers ;)
Here is a first try to make it 3D

I have still some Alpha issues with this model, but it comes...
Edited on Jun 19, 2006 07:56 GMT

Neil Marshall   (Jun 19, 2006 at 13:50 GMT)

I was going to say it was a photo because you used a Nikon E7600 on 2006/06/07 at 16:11:23. The gloss comes from the flash with red eye removal. The focal length of your lens was 7.8mm. Exposure time was 1/628th of a second with an f-stop of 4.8. Your "film" was rated as 50 and you left the white balance at automatic.

But it could have been 3D ;)

Chris \"C2\" Byars   (Jun 19, 2006 at 14:00 GMT)

Hah! I didn't even think of downloading the image and checking its summary!

Tim Hutcheson   (Jun 19, 2006 at 14:11 GMT)

Neil: that's cheating. ;o)

Vincent: nice blog.

In retrospect, I remember thinking the histogram proved it to be real but didn't follow that thought.

Treb Connell (formerlyMasterTreb   (Jun 19, 2006 at 14:28 GMT)

man those are some nice flowers.

Vincent BILLET   (Jun 19, 2006 at 14:48 GMT)

@Neil : LOL ;)

Edit : I Have to find how to hide these data for the next time :)
Edited on Jun 19, 2006 14:51 GMT

Manoel Neto   (Jun 19, 2006 at 15:10 GMT)

Dang. Was going to say "photo".

Most people go scanning for artifacts left by 3D renders. I scanned for artifacts left by nature, which are next to impossible to get "right" in 3D.

- The petals' disposition in each flower are subetly non-uniform, and you can find them touching each other in a few places. There's even a smashed petal in one of the flowers.

- There are flowers at different withering stages, as well as some dying leaves.

- It's hard to explain, but the positioning of the details (like the petals on the ground, and the foliage disposition) doesn't feel too arranged. It feels different, more organized (even when it's purposely scrambled), when everything is laid out by a human, or even by computer algorithms.

Mark Buxton   (Mar 26, 2007 at 15:04 GMT)

I thought it was a photo.. but I had to laugh at the last post because.. didn't vicent say the flowers were most likely fake? (Man made) =) Nice flowers.. The photo would take a long time to duplicate in 3d.
Edited on Mar 26, 2007 15:04 GMT

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved