Darn, it looks like it won't be long before photo editing software can
(1) Find stock models for all objects in a scene
(2) Align them perfectly
(3) Let you manipulate them arbitrarily
(4) Render an output picture with all the changes applied that is virtually indistinguishable from a real photograph.
Once this happens (and it doesn't look like it'll take long) photography will no longer be an accurate reference for knowledge about the real world.
Still not there for me. The devil is in the detail - the sauce and the strawberries in the food picture, the books in the desk picture. Also, I still haven't seen a rendering of a human being that looks genuinely photorealistic.
I used to love that technology was pushing towards this point when I was a kid. Now it scares me. Maybe I'm getting old..
I stand by that what I've mentioned looks fake (especially the strawberries and the sauce) but I think that would be a great exercise. Your brain believes what it expects. I had the expectation that these were renderings so it was easy to pick out flaws.
The are very good. Knowing they're renderings though, you can see it in the face and hair.
DanBC made an interesting comment - it would interesting to see renderings like these in a double blind test with photographs and see how well they stack up.
Those are pictures of an adult, not a child. When you use the word "girl" to describe an adult woman you're implicitly belittling her. Don't be that guy.
> Those are pictures of an adult, not a child. When you use the word "girl" to describe an adult woman you're implicitly belittling her. Don't be that guy.
Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker (so I'm not confident enough to downvote or anything), but your judging this use of “girl” as female version of “boy”, ignoring the overall mode of expression, doesn't seem adequate. I would have no objections if thomaseng's comment was more formal:
> I would consider these pictures of a girl quite lifelike
But it's not.
If I were the author, and the pictures were of a man, I'd totally say “guy”. Once you flip the gender, “guy” seems to become “girl”, not “woman”. (Again, given the overall informal style used.)
And as for the word “guy”, it doesn't sound in any way belittling a grown-up man (and you just used it yourself).
I would say that the male equivalent of "girl" is "boy", not "guy".
The English language is often unhelpful in that exact equivalents of the word you want that exist for one gender don't exist for the other, or else carry other connotations. Master vs Mistress for instance.
The real-time V-Ray raytracing is slow because it is very high quality -- it is doing real global illumination with no precalculations, favoring quality over speed.
It would be cool if the position and rotation would be synchronized between the two, so I could choose a nice view in the Real-Time tab and switch over to Photo Realistic to get the raytraced version.
It works that way in the editor (although you need a Clara.io account and you need to be logged in) if you set up multiple viewports with the same camera.
You just described holy grail in 3D vision, AI and robotics. Being able to make sense of the world from a 2D image is one of the cornerstones for building artificial brain.
Once this happens (and it doesn't look like it'll take long) photography will no longer be an accurate reference for knowledge about the real world.