PDA

View Full Version : Fake or Foto....can you tell?



Mark Rios
11-15-2006, 11:43 AM
From a newsletter:

Fake or Foto?
"Computer-generated graphics have become startlingly good. Anyone who's seen some of the recent blockbusters knows this.

Sometimes, computer generated graphics are so good, they're indistinguishable from reality. Care to disagree?

Then take the Fake or Foto test at today's Cool Site. It presents you with a series of 10 images. All you need do is select which are real and which aren't.

You may be shocked when you see your score. You'll also get the opportunity to see the correct answer for each picture. This is a fun quiz to share with your friends!"



Take the challenge, be amazed and have your life changed.................:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fakeorfoto/quiz.html
__________________

Mitchell Andrus
11-15-2006, 11:49 AM
I got 7 out of 10. I'll argue about one of them... no way it's CG.

Mitch

Jeffrey Makiel
11-15-2006, 12:33 PM
I'm familiar with CAD and some simple rendering softwares...and I'm always amazed at what can be done. But I will say this: the folks that created these images probably spent a whole lot of time doing so.
-Jeff :)

Frank Fusco
11-15-2006, 12:39 PM
Four of ten. Basically just guessing. My son is good with this stuff. He made a photo of a hammer hitting an egg. The hammer shatters, egg OK.

Justin McCurdy
11-15-2006, 1:38 PM
9 of 10. The only one that got me was the corkscrew. The background looked like somebody tried to replicate brushed metal. I guess it really was brushed metal.

Matt Meiser
11-15-2006, 1:52 PM
I got 9 of 10, but Justin is giving out answers :D

Bill Lewis
11-15-2006, 2:21 PM
I got all 14 right (after seeing the answers). Started with 11 out of 14. I'd have to argue that the BMW pic is made up from a compilation of images vs. 100% CG. Here's one that I did that is... Designed in CAD, and rendered in another program.

Michael Cody
11-15-2006, 6:40 PM
9 of 10. The only one that got me was the corkscrew. The background looked like somebody tried to replicate brushed metal. I guess it really was brushed metal.


9 out of 10 too.. I missed the same one .. looks like CG to me too, didn't look like real brushed metal.

Tim Morton
11-15-2006, 6:46 PM
8 out of 10...I missed the monkeys and the CU of the car....and I do this for a living...:eek:

Wes Bischel
11-15-2006, 7:59 PM
9 out of 10 - the car got me - I agree it's a photo of the car with CG revisions.

Thanks for the link Mark.

Wes

Joash Boyton
11-15-2006, 8:08 PM
10 out of 10 correct, bonus round I got 3 out of 4 right.

13 out of 14...don't have any experience in this at all..

James Ogle
11-15-2006, 11:17 PM
14 for 14. Of course I probably have an edge since I stared at Computer Graphics for pay for a period of three years.

Eric Mims
11-15-2006, 11:27 PM
The one of the car is done entirely in 3d.. the car is a model, as is the ground and the fence. They put in a background photo of the buildings in the 3d scene. The reason it looks so real is the reflections, plain and simple. What you do is use HDRI (not like the HDR stuff in the new Photoshop) , which is basically a spherical 360 panorama photo (of the surrounding real-world environment) that contains many exposure levels. You then add this spherical photo to your scene as a spherical environment. You can then use the 'environment' to provide your lighting or, more importantly, your reflections. So the car reflects both the actual 3d objects (stones/fence) as well as the environment surrounding it.

The beauty of HDRI is that since it contains multiple exposure levels it reacts properly with materials.. what I mean is next time you're in the sun, look at the sun relection off a chrome bumper. Then look at it reflected in a dark car paint or the reflection off tinted window.. It cannot simply be the same exposure only darkened..it actually contains details that cannot be seen in the chrome reflection. So if the image only had one level of exposure, you'd have to settle for a happy medium that would look OK with bright reflections as well 'dark' reflections. HDRI solves this.

and if you wonder why I know any of this..it's what my day job is right now.

Gary Herrmann
11-15-2006, 11:48 PM
I got 8 out of 10. I looked more at shadows and reflections than the item itself, but maybe I just got lucky.

Martin Shupe
11-16-2006, 3:24 AM
8 out of 10, missed the first car and the corkscrew, got fooled by the blurry background of the car, and the fake brushed metal. I got the monkeys only because the wood grain looked like it matched too well in the faces.

Keel McDonald
11-16-2006, 8:05 AM
I got 8 of 10.

Jason Roehl
11-16-2006, 10:00 AM
I only got 6 of 10. I thought the first car was easy--the view THROUGH the windows was a tell--there's no refraction. I got the corkscrew right because there were too many random flaws on the handle of the corkscrew. As for the monkeys, look at the raised "hand"--it looks a touch "cartoonish". I must say they're getting much better at it!

Wes Bischel
11-16-2006, 11:22 AM
The one of the car is done entirely in 3d.. the car is a model, as is the ground and the fence. They put in a background photo of the buildings in the 3d scene. The reason it looks so real is the reflections, plain and simple. What you do is use HDRI (not like the HDR stuff in the new Photoshop) , which is basically a spherical 360 panorama photo (of the surrounding real-world environment) that contains many exposure levels. You then add this spherical photo to your scene as a spherical environment. You can then use the 'environment' to provide your lighting or, more importantly, your reflections. So the car reflects both the actual 3d objects (stones/fence) as well as the environment surrounding it.

The beauty of HDRI is that since it contains multiple exposure levels it reacts properly with materials.. what I mean is next time you're in the sun, look at the sun relection off a chrome bumper. Then look at it reflected in a dark car paint or the reflection off tinted window.. It cannot simply be the same exposure only darkened..it actually contains details that cannot be seen in the chrome reflection. So if the image only had one level of exposure, you'd have to settle for a happy medium that would look OK with bright reflections as well 'dark' reflections. HDRI solves this.

and if you wonder why I know any of this..it's what my day job is right now.


Wow, things have come a long way in a few years since I've been out of the business! They even put trash and moss in between the cobblestones! We worked on interiors - a bit easier to render since the lighting and environments are controlled.
Thanks for the info Eric.

Wes