Realism in CG Images of Humans

I'm sure some of you saw the movie Avatar and the CGI in that was good, but you could still tell it was CGI, even if the faces looked human it would have been noticeable.

But some artists are getting really good at making more realistic images. I ran across a few I thought I'd share to see if you think they look realistic. In some cases you can see higher resolution images by visiting the links.

Which do you think looks the most realistic? The least realistic?

This is one of the best I've seen, as it would fool me in passing:
forums.cgsociety.org...

Software: 3ds max, ZBrush

This one is largely excellent, but there's something about the coloration and shading in the lower lip area that looks off. Other than that I'm impressed.
forums.cgsociety.org...

Software: 3ds max, mental ray, Photoshop, ZBrush

This is one of the best images I've seen:
forums.cgsociety.org...

Software: Maya, mental ray, Mudbox, Photoshop, VRay

This is a whole body image which it pretty convincing in this view, but if you enlarge the face it doesn't look quite as realistic as the other faces:
forums.cgsociety.org...

Software: 3ds max, mental ray, Photoshop, ZBrush

If any of you have seen or produced as good or better work, feel free to share it here.

Would any of these fool you into thinking it's a real person?

the hair is a bit off.....just, too....uhm...just not natural, but otherwise really good...

eyes on the third one are a dead give away, but your right, it is still a really good pic...

I was actually honestly fooled by Tron Legacy

I really thought they just used lots of makeup and made Jeff Bridges look really young for the role of Clu

In fact it was completely CG and not a real human at all.


All the photos you posted....it's the Hair that always is the hardest to do, so its usually the first thing I notice myself.

I reckon a Bald guy would render quite realistically hehehe

reply to post by pointr97


I agree, the hairline in the third image looks more natural to me, than the one in the second, which is a bit low and more spotty than a normal hairline.

Edit to add: I looked at the image again, that's not her hairline, my bad. It's just a really odd hairdo. But your point is valid that the hair could look more realistic. Several people commented about that where the image was initially posted.

I think the first and third down look
the most realistic. Number three
is very convincing - she has natural
looking freckles and even a small
scar on one eye brow. The hair
looks right as does the eyes.
I am a photographer and love to
use the digital enhancing programs
from time to time. I haven't tried this
yet but might be fun at some future
date. Thanks for sharing!

reply to post by Nick_X

Good point. If you look at some early CGI animation efforts, they sometimes just gave up on the hair and used something that looked totally unnatural simply because that was all the computers of the time could handle. There's a lot of information to encode in thousands of strands of hair. It's gotten a lot better, but it's still somewhat of a giveaway. The third image is pretty close.

Does anyone have some ideas on
software to get started on this?

reply to post by crazydaisy

That's a good question, so I edited the OP to show the software used in each of the images.

The third image which may be the most realistic used Maya to start with.

Maya has a 30 day free trial should you decide you want to try it for a month.

usa.autodesk.com... I think that's it, I've used other Autodesk products before, but not Maya. From the third link in the OP:

It's modeled in Maya and sculpted and painted in Mudbox.. rendered in Vray with a dome light. Hair and face fuzz was done in Shave and rendered separately with Mental Ray...

Originally posted by crazydaisy
I am a photographer and love to use the digital enhancing programs from time to time.

In that case you're probably already familiar with photoshop right? That was used by some artists.

I haven't tried this yet but might be fun at some future date. Thanks for sharing!

You're welcome. It looks like fun, but it also looks like it takes a lot of time to make them look this good.

The things to look for which still arnt replicated properly in photoshops, are lighting/shadow and dirt or dust, im going to add blemish and skin texture too since these shops are portraits.

These are by far the best ive seen and its certinly getting very close to the piont, where if you wernt told you really wouldnt notice.

The young girls right eye is incorrect, the first pic lips are not right and on the blonde girl, her neck doesnt look right mainly the left shadowed side.

EDIT: also the blondes ear rings dont look like they hang correct either.

Originally posted by Biigs
The young girls right eye is incorrect, the first pic lips are not right and on the blonde girl, her neck doesnt look right mainly the left shadowed side.

I see what you mean about the lips on the first image, but I hadn't noticed the other two problems. Your eye might be more discerning than mine.

Originally posted by Nick_X
I reckon a Bald guy would render quite realistically hehehe

I was checking out the artists website for the third image in the OP, and found an earlier bald rendering there, is this better?

www.danroarty.com...


Maybe it doesn't work as well for a gal as it might for a guy?

Anyway, that's a good site to visit if you want to see how the model looked in various stages of creation.

I am into this stuff. Here is one that inspires me much more - stunning model of Ingrid Bergman from the same artist who did the first image. Modeling needs a hell lot of reference but more experienced ones like this needs very little.



Looks more natural to me especially the background and the feel in it.

Numbers 1 & 3 look very convincing. 2 & 4... not so, but still pretty darn good. However, I'd like to know how much touching up went on in PS. An animated clip would be the real proof in the pudding.

Haha! The artist in question has a picture of Karl Pilkington as his avatar

Originally posted by radkrish
Looks more natural to me especially the background and the feel in it.

Thanks for posting that, it is stunningly outstanding.

The hair seems to be the hard part though.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Numbers 1 & 3 look very convincing. 2 & 4... not so, but still pretty darn good. However, I'd like to know how much touching up went on in PS. An animated clip would be the real proof in the pudding.

Well if you believe the software lists provided by the artists, they all used photoshop except #1.

I don't know if he used photoshop and just failed to mention it or what? The bald version of #3 I posted has a link to the artist's website, and while he doesn't have an animation there that I saw, I did see lots of images in various stages so that might provide some idea.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It would be interesting to know what PS was used for. This is complete speculation on my part but it could be as simple as changing the backdrop to maybe a nip/tuck (so to speak) hear and there to mask any minor artefacts or maybe some image space techniques like HDR or tone adjustment. I think regardless the before/after wouldn't be night and day, rather an artist giving that final buff with the cloth. Certainly less than what goes on when real people are photoshopped

Great pics ,. I think the first and second pics in your collection are equally realistic. The 3rd one has dead eyes

CGI is getting so good these days. I make and sell 3D models , i dont do living stuff i mainly make high quality UFO's for films and history documentaries. Realism is as much down to the rendering setup (lighting settings) as much as the quality if the model.

Heres some from the site where i sell my stuff (these are not mine) :


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source

reply to post by PhoenixOD

Thanks for sharing, those are great, especially the first and last. The hair seems to be hard to get right, but the hair on the lion's mane in the last image is great except for a tuft at the top that doesn't look right. I think it might have something to do with the lighting effect? For the most part though it's probably better than the hair on a lot of human images I've seen.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The lions mane was created using the 'shave and a haircut' plugin in Maya. It could be the lighting that cause that tiny bit to not look right, or it might look better on a darker background.

heres some more using shave and a haircut:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This is one of the best I've seen, as it would fool me in passing:
forums.cgsociety.org...

Software: 3ds max, ZBrush

While the skin-tone and features are excellent, take a closer look at her ears.

They seem to be way out of proportion.