what's "wrong" with this image?

[Mark (theKeeper)]

Hi peoples! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I'm not trying to pull a fast one here.. i just wanted to make a point, by example. I hope everyone's Ok with that?

(This subject matter btw was brought to mind from a Bryce image i saw in the Gallery. But by NO means am i underminding that image here.)

Take a look at the image below.
Can anyone tell me what it is about that image (Terragen by the way) that does NOT 'sit right' with your eye?

HINT: no... it's NOT the UFOs either... OR the Jpg anomolies! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

TIP: examine the image closely and really think about what might be 'missing', that would make it more 'realistic' under normal conditions.

In my opinion, besides general texture details, this one aspect/detail is the most common 'flaw' seen (or NOT seen) in CG Imaging - even in highend mega-buck$ movies.

Mark...

[Mark (theKeeper)]

Hi peoples! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I'm not trying to pull a fast one here.. i just wanted to make a point, by example. I hope everyone's Ok with that?

(This subject matter btw was brought to mind from a Bryce image i saw in the Gallery. But by NO means am i underminding that image here.)

Take a look at the image below.
Can anyone tell me what it is about that image (Terragen by the way) that does NOT 'sit right' with your eye?

HINT: no... it's NOT the UFOs either... OR the Jpg anomolies! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

TIP: examine the image closely and really think about what might be 'missing', that would make it more 'realistic' under normal conditions.

In my opinion, besides general texture details, this one aspect/detail is the most common 'flaw' seen (or NOT seen) in CG Imaging - even in highend mega-buck$ movies.

Mark...

[Steve Newport]

Ok Mark, I hesitate to answer this in that I might look stupid by pointing out something that looks completely fine! BUT, I'll give it a go!

For one thing I think the shadow's of the UFO's may be a LITTLE off. The sun seems to be coming from the upper-left, maybe a little from the back. This would make just a circular shadow on the ground without the window showing. And to be really picky, the UFO shadows should be just a tad sharper.

One other thing is just something I do when joining photos with 3D or sometimes other photos. I tend to match the pixelation/graininess with each other. In this case, making the UFO images a little more grainy to make it look like it was rendered with the same program, or in some cases, taken with the same camera in the same scene at the same time. This is sometimes what makes you say, "Ah, sweet graphics" in some film, it's that unnatural smoothness that makes it look 3D and what the artists of it dread. They don't want people to think or say "how'd they do that", or "sweet graphics". They don't even want the viewer to notice it, the point is to keep the viewers mind "in" the movie, and anything that looks slightly unreal will make you realize "Hey, I'm in a movie theater watching a movie with cgi" instead of "I'm in a world where dinosaurs are walking around me!" I hope I didn't go on this tangent for nothing! Thanks for the challenge

Steve Newport

[mom_de_bomb]

HI Mark,
Here's what I see.

First, way too much of the mountain is in shadow, especially with the sparseness of the clouds. If that were the shadow of the mountain itself, there would still be a patch of sunlight or two.

Second, the sky has the same problem I see quite often, the colors are just too bright. It makes for a nice picture but doesn't look quite real. Real life has many greyed down colors.

Finally, I'd like to see something in the extreme background so it doesn't look like the edge of the world, and something in the extreme foreground to bring the viewer in. Maybe even a (dare I say?) tree.

Sharon P.
www.fischerpassmoredesign.com

[Erik Heyninck]

I often have problems with the size of computer images. This could be realsize mountains et all, but it could also fit into my hand.

Even if this is not what you're trying to show, it is something I wanted to post as an answer to Gary's Photo-Idealism and Textures idea. In my opinion there is a third factor besides visual complex forms and textures, and that is scale. We need some kind of reference. Still this is not limited to computer graphics. I made a photograph last year of really impressive rocks, only in real they were only some 15 inches large. Question of using the right wide angle lens.

If you don't work against time, time often works for you.

[randyrives]

Rasing my hand and waving it...I know I know

Someone's initials spray painting onto the rocks [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]!!!


I think it is the lack of holes in the ground/rocks or caves. You know those things when you go hiking you always sprain your ankle in.


--Randy

[Gary David Bouton]

I really like what you've submitted and the response you are getting, because we're learning from your post.

The highlights are on the wrong side of the saucers, and the shadows are in front of the saucers, where they should not be.


When are you going to post the real answers? 8^)


Great work BTW.

Gary David Bouton
www.boutons.com
Gary@GaryWorld.com
Visit a really large gallery at www.GaryWorld.com!

[Dan Huff]

I agree with Gary, and I also think the shadows sould be a lot farther away from them, and more stretched out, if the shadow from the mountain is any indication of the position of the sun.

Excellent thread, Mark!

Danny Huff
http://www.asherrocks.com
(I'm the guy who USED to have a lot of excess hair)

[Dan Huff]

How about the atmosphere missing from the pic, water vapor or whatever tends to distort the color of something, making it lighter and less distinct, the farther you get from whatever you're looking at? Usually with a bluish cast, reflecting off the sky which is reflecting off the water, maybe, or something like that???? Most CGI pics don't seen to have that, and it takes away from the realism, or believability of the pic.

Danny Huff
http://www.asherrocks.com
(I'm the guy who USED to have a lot of excess hair)

[Mark (theKeeper)]

Danny... i'm talking to you! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I'll respond to your observation there ok?

over...