Strides in Photo-Realism?
Gregorius
Posts: 397
I may have reached a milestone in my quest for photo-realistic Poser renders. I've been really liking the overall look of my latest images, but of course, I'm probably not the best person to assess my own work. So as always, I sought the perspective of fresher eyes by posting a couple of images on FanArtReview, a visual art sharing site that hosts work from a variety of genres and media. This close-up of a female eye seemed to fare especially well.
The commenter wrote, "Wow! This is very realistic and yes, it presents as a photograph of the eye!...I showed this to my husband and asked him what he sees, he said, 'a photo of someone's eye.'"
This render of my Superman character earned another particularly encouraging comment.
The reviewer said, "I love how real he looks."
Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm being naive and overly credulous, maybe with a helping of confirmation bias thrown in. Still, I can't help but feel encouraged, especially since my last image posted to the same site prior to an extended break seemed to be met with much less success in the photo-realism department. So I thought these images would be worth sharing here, if for no other reason than to see if this community agrees that I've at least made a substantial stride or two in the right direction.
I should note that neither of these images is a raw, unaltered render. Both have been subject to some quick postwork, more specifically an experimental procedure for emulating a more "filmic" color space.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The are massively improved from the last posts I remember you making and really are getting to be realistic looking in parts but because the eyebrows & hair look like they are from the year 2000 in terms of resolution & technology I can't just glance at them and think I am looking at a picture.
THIS ^
Here is a random photo of a human eye close up
Your close up eye render does not compare in terms of "photorealism"
IMHO.. not at all
do not be mislead by the polite encouragement of strangers.
Poser models and content and the poser software render engine wont get you where you are trying to go... enthusiasm is laudible however...tools matter and you frankly, are using the wrong tools for this endeavor. IMHO
Yeah, I think that really the ONLY way to determine if a render is "photorealistic" is to put it side-by-side with an actual photo, and, very critically, compare the two. We're talking facial proportions, colors, shadows, skin texture and depth, details, light colors, and so on.
I think if you do that, you'll quickly find those areas in which you're falling short. I think many of us assume we obviously know what "photorealistic" means, and don't need to check it versus a real photo, but in fact when it comes down to it, it's very difficult (almost impossible) to pinpoint all of the things that come together to make something look like a photo of an actual person.
Thanks, guys! Yeah, even I agree that the eyebrows still don't seem to hold up, at least and especially not in close-ups. That's why I was surprised when neither of the FanArtReview comments even mentioned them. I thought they would be hard to miss. In any case, I'm glad I'm not just hallucinating a dramatic improvement, even if it's still not enough to get me 100% there.
I too think it's a great improvement! But as mentioned before, you should render your characters in some kind of environment, without that it's an instant giveaway;)
You have actually stated what makes something look like a real photo
indeed it is "all of the things that come together"
it is eveything, including the environment.
IMHO it is utterly pointless ,to the extent of being nearly masochistic, to spend countless hours tweaking eye textures
and skin maps
(that are essentially 3D renders of photo copies of human skinas Rashad Carter once described.)
and then top it all off with uber fake hair that was not even convincing back in 1998,and expect people in the CG saturated Era of late 2018 to agree that you have emulated actual photography.....why??
I do, actually. The character is surrounded by a fully modeled photo studio set.
The general impression I'm getting is that most or all of the shortcomings lie in the eyebrows and hair, or at the very least, the eyebrows/hair overshadow any issues in the skin or eyes. Is that at least close to accurate?
Yes but how would I know? All I see is this guy against some slightly tinted backdrop. I can't see any reflections as to give me a hint, all I see is the specular highlights in his eyes.
Well...I guess...let me just say that you're not doing any better nor any worse than most renders in these forums (forgive me folks for speaking out loud), IMHO VERY few pictures are even close to photoreal, so actually I'm not that interested in the whole photoreal thing;) I just keep doing my thing because I like it, not trying to fool myself or any others, just my 2cents. Still interested in seeing people making progress though
It's kinda funny, people photographers look for ways to make their photos look more artificial, while we go the opposite way. Maybe we should just swap hobbies and be happy eh :P
We as a race are totally obsessed with trying to replicate reality in every way there is. It's funny yeah! I mean we will never even get close... one cannot grasp or even witness more than a tiny piece of what's out there- or maybe it's in there
ETA Please ignore this
I think it's a matter of learning one thing at a time. I think they need to earnestly move on to the hair & eyebrows for many an iteration & then just cycle through every part of the textures after that portion is brought up to comparable quality.
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it here.
have you tried morphing the actual 'eyeball assembly' so that the eye surface has more curvature? the Iris/Pupil look very 'flat' in the eye closeup.
also check your reflection settings on the 'eye surface', there should be a reflection of the environment visible ( even if it is pretty faint )
do not use any reflection/eyelight maps, they will always look 'fake'
always check to see if the chosen texture maps have any eyelights/highlights 'burnt in', which will also look 'fake' when the image is rendered.
as Wolf mentioned, it is VERY difficult to get 'photo realistic' results, as most 'Real' photographs end up being 'tweaked' to some extent ( blemish removal, smoothing, colour correction etc )
also it is very 'subjective',. one person will 'see' something, another one will 'see' something totally different.
don't get discouraged, just keep plugging away . it is YOUR art, and only you can decide whether it is 'right' or not.
just my tuppence worth :)
I'm pretty sure the cornea bulge is dialed up all the way to 1, and there is a faint reflection of the character's surroundings. If you're having trouble spotting it, it's most visible in the pupil.
Actually I think your eye is very close. It needs better lighting insted of whatr looks like spotlighting so the surface doesn't look so flat and for you to model a deeper 'glaze of water' over the entire eye and modify the current water moisture shader material to use a water shader with a sufficiently detailed set of maps that mimics aqueous caustics (like in a the earlier DAZ freebie Public Outdoor Swimming Pool the water in it has a good set of shaders for what I mean).
I remember seeing some of your trials of this earlier in the year and I've got to agree with others here in that you have made some great improvements. Your instinct to seek the opinions of others, but within and outside of the 3D rendering world are correct - if you want accurate and truthful feedback then you need a wide net.
However, as has already been said, I don't think that you (or any of us) will ever create anything in the current or near-future versions of Daz Studio or Poser that looks enough like a photograph of a person that it would fool the majority of people, especially those of us who use 3D as a hobby, or people who do this professionally. Part of that might be the lighting and render engines, but a part of it is that all Daz or Poser figures are somewhat stylised depending on the artist who created them, and on top of that there are still limitations in the figures. Maybe in ten years time it will be different, but for now you are working with a lot of factors, any one of which can give the game away in terms of making your image look like a photograph.
That said, I still think that striving for a high degree of realism is worth doing. It's easy to say, "You could just take a photograph of a real person." but I do believe that the techniques that anyone learns on trying to move towards photo realism can then be applied to situations where it is not possible to just take a photograph - a mythical creature, a futuristic robot or an impossible creature (say, a cow with tiger stripes). Perhaps one day your work on the textures that you have shown here can be applied to other situations in different graphics software. Personally, I think that you've made a lot of progress, I am interested to see what you come up with in the future, and if you enjoy doing this, then definitely keep at it.
Thanks for so many detailed comments! Nonesuch, I actually have Poser's caustics enabled in the render engine, and I have a 3-point setup using area lights, which are basically mesh lights. One is a large rectangular fill light, while the key and back lights are smaller and made circular by a kind of gobo. Maybe I could morph the iris/pupil to be a bit more concave or something.
Quick experiment: how does just the skin look on this male torso, rendered without any body hair visible so that any serious flaws there won't distract from the rest of the texturing?
Also, as per Sven's suggestion, here's a sample of what my textures/shaders look like in a more interesting setting (a fully modeled bedroom with a window and an Environment Sphere outside of it). There are two lights: a sunlight and a lamp light (both off-camera).
Heh what can I say.. she's cute;) Nice one!
To the OP: If getting close to "realism" is your goal you have to move to a proper PBR engine or learn to use the one in poser (superfly) and perhaps consider making use of HDR lightsources
If you are trying to develop your own skin materials or are using some "merchant resource kit"they are quite far from the standards that have become the expected norm for 'realism" in these communities in 2018.
Here is another random example from an artist at Deviantart.
A Daz studio render with NVIDIA IRay.
Of course to most jaded eyes, in this community,her hair ( as usual ) is killing any hope of photorealism.
,still however IMHO this render is an order of magnitude closer to looking like a photograph ,at first glance, than every one of the renders you have posted in the various threads with those same two models you seem to prefer.
And trust me it is more than just your skin maps
for CG "realism "you need to learn physically based lighting as well .
I actually am using SuperFly and have been for quite a while now. What exactly do you mean by "physically based lighting"? I use Poser area lights with inverse square falloff.
I totally agree. The image you posted from the DA account is leaps and bounds closer to realism that what the OP has posted in this thread and in the past.
The OP keep posting images in this and other threads with the goal of realism. While the textures and details are closer, the lighting used in the images is flat and featureless which leaves much to be desired and further away from any form of realism IMO. In all honesty, maybe the OP needs to move to different renderer other than what comes with poser.
Many Poser/DAZ Studio hairs and cloths are the obstacles to true photo-real images. This is my latest photo-real Elf Portrait.
this is on the DAZ Studio Artists discussion group on FaceBook /// as an example
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10212335005712360&set=gm.10157456740287241&type=3&theater&ifg=1
Isn't the lighting in the DA sample image rather flat too? Unless by "flat" you mean something besides lacking in contrast.
I have no experience with anything Poser, so I won't be able to give you any solid advice specified for this software But I also aim for a certain realistic feel in my renders and I have to agree with what is said here, as I imagine it is applicable for any render engine. Focus on one subject, such as refraction, translucency or SSS settings.
Tweaking is key and a million tests. (okay, perhaps a little less, but still lots!) My final work usually consists of several layers of renders, because some areas don't behave as I'd like them to under specific cirumstances.
One of the artists that I know that has been able to get awesome results within DS and Iray is MEC4D imho, but again, that was within DS & Iray and not Poser, so I have no references for that.
I still have lots to learn and there will probably be no end to it XD
Something I learned is that shadows are never just 100% just pure black. One of my art teachers learned us to use complementairy colours in shadows, which really helps in giving more depth and life in a piece.
Using a real photo as a texture doesn't make a render look real, but the way light behaves as it touches your subject makes it come to life.
I am no expert whatsoever, but I do understand your endeavors of endless rendering and testing and I can only share in what I've learned during my long nights of tweaking! :)
Try fiddling with translucency / SSS settings. Or whatever Poser's equavalent might be. Giving the glossy a slight bluish colour and the SSS a dark orange are usually good starting points for adding more life to skin.
For what it's worth, I think the skin texture on the nose in the first image is a giveaway.
It looks like the textured plastic on the case of my old analog multimeter.
Very nice work nDelphi!
It's getting there, step by step. Sure, some things, like brow hairs and beards still have a ways to go to reach complete photo realism, but development is still going forward.
Now, what does that mean for us, both professional and hobby render-fans?
It means we are able to make more realistic renders than we could make 10 years ago, but also, that we have to be very careful with our choice of components, lighting, angles and everything. Sometimes, it's better to tone down the realism on one component (for example, the realism of the skin), so it matches the realism of a component that just isn't there yet (for example, the hair), to get a consistent aesthetic. Sure, it can be an art-style to have clashes in realism in your render. But do keep in mind that an ultra realistic component (for example, an actual photograph used as a background) will make it more obvious when a figure, or even a prop, is cgi.
Kids immerse themselves in a Donald Duck comic because the whole style is consistently cartoonish, not because Donald look realistic or because photographs were used for backgrounds. Changing only one of either to realism would rather break immersion, and remove their suspension of disbelief.
Lots of good points here!
@Gregorius "I use Poser area lights with inverse square falloff."
Way more to physically based lighting than inverse square falloff.