Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Hard to believe it is CG  (Read 17295 times)

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2010, 02:00:03 pm »

.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 02:01:16 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2010, 02:29:31 pm »

I just realized all he listede was 2D....
Its been a few years, but if your model is free of shadow and you place in a 3D made room..It has to be a 3D environment.
with a 2d background wall....I think it is do-able.

All images are treated as a flat plane, so anything with shape to it, consider the image will wrap around it.  If its a wall..it will look flat(besides perspective).  Think of isometric.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2010, 03:38:55 pm »

Argh, I am with Phil, I also thought you meant 2D people in a 3D environment, but on re-reading it, realized that you wanted 2D people on a 2D background. Photoshop. There is not enough information for automated work here.

========

Here is my previous post:

Well... depending on what you are hoping for, you could use a trick to get in the right direction.

Fundamentally, the others are right: if you have just 2D data, there is no easy way to add 3D-dependent information to it or the scene.

However, where there is a will, there is a way. First of all, the people need to be carrying their own shadows (on themselves), or you will need add it in Photoshop.

The shadows of the people on the environment, however, can be faked. It would be possible to model a really crude person, make that person invisible in the scene, but able to cast shadows. That way when it renders, the shadow will come from the proxy, and the look of the person from the photo/cutout. The feet would need to match closely, but we are surprisingly bad at telling exactly what shadows (or reflecions, or ...) should look like. Basically anything beyond directly visible objects can be fudged quite a lot without us being able to tell.

As far as shadows from the environment onto the person goes, that could be a little trickier. Since the visual appearance is given by a 2D cutout, any shadows falling on it will be flat. You might have to resort to Photoshop here again too, to fix up the details.

Architectural visualisation uses this type of workflow a fair amount, to my knowledge. Aren't there helpful CG sites for this audience? Failing that, more information could be found in the forums on sites like cgsociety.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 03:41:47 pm by carstenw »
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

AndrewDyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
    • http://www.andrewdyer.com
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2010, 03:41:53 pm »

Quote from: pcunite
Something I have wanted to know how to do and perhaps Carsten you may know. I want to add people (not objects) to a scene and control the lighting completely in software. The models will be lit completely shadowless as much as possible. So we have:

1. Shoot the background, room, client set, whatever.
2. Shoot model in the studio in a completely shadowless way.
3. Add model to background image.
4. Using a software program add light & shadow to the model.

Is this possible? I know how to do everything but step 4.

The 2D way...
The only way I can think of to do this would be to cut the 'neutrally lit' model out of the studio shot in Photoshop... place it in the room / set... then to simulate directional light
apply 2 adjustment layers (Curves or Levels - what ever you prefer to use) to the model. One curve for the highlights and the other for shading.
Then Airbrush where you want these contrasts to be... may take some drawng / illustrative skills.
And then, either airbrush a shadow layer underneath the model, or there may be some plugin software that simulates cast shadows... I am sure there used to be a filter/plugin for that.

The 3D way...
You can cut the model out of your studio shot and place the image onto a flat 3D card / plane object (that the shape of the model masks out) in your 3D package and it will render with the scene.
It will cast shadows and reflections, and the shadows will follow the contour of the objects it falls on, but will not be as "thick" if the light is on a side angle to the model.
Neither will the model have correct shading, so this will have to be done in photoshop like the '2D' way.
Example attached.

Probably just as easy to go the photoshop way...
Hope that gives you something to think about.

cheers
Logged
Andrew
 ht

AndrewDyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
    • http://www.andrewdyer.com
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2010, 03:43:39 pm »

Oooops... sorrry I thought you meant a 3D room as well....
Looks like it all photoshop shading then.
Logged
Andrew
 ht

pcunite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2010, 08:41:36 pm »

Thank you gentlemen. Yes I was referring to a 2D background and 2D model. Some of the points raised could perhaps be done by software one day. Just select out a human form (the 2D of the model you shot in the studio) and the software will create a 3D model with a 25inch waist! Then when I drop the model onto my 2D background I grab a "light tool" and place it where I want and the angle I want. Seems like something close enough could be programmed. That would be very slick...

But light from the 2D background hitting the model... yeah that sounds tough...
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 08:45:36 pm by pcunite »
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2010, 10:11:21 pm »

Quote from: pcunite
Thank you gentlemen. Yes I was referring to a 2D background and 2D model. Some of the points raised could perhaps be done by software one day. Just select out a human form (the 2D of the model you shot in the studio) and the software will create a 3D model with a 25inch waist! Then when I drop the model onto my 2D background I grab a "light tool" and place it where I want and the angle I want. Seems like something close enough could be programmed. That would be very slick...

But light from the 2D background hitting the model... yeah that sounds tough...


There is such a thing as a scriber.  trace your object and vwaalllaa!
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2010, 07:49:09 pm »

The take-home point from this is that specialists are much more common than those who excel in everything.

I've said it before: that photographers make beautiful pictures, but make for poor cinematographers and shitty story-tellers. I ranted about this when Reverie came out. I understand it was mostly a tech demo, but many hailed it as a beginning of the end, just like this (visually stunning) CGI clip. Rather than the end, it was the beginning of a flood of often photographically good, but poorly conceived and dulldulldull clips from people who think a 5DII or 7D turns them into an oliver stone. And don't get me started on the orgy of ultra-shallow DOF - it must be good because it can be done.

I've seen similar CGI clips before, but I didn't believe it was CGI until I read numerous comments and saw making-ofs, so there's definitely something unique here. Just like Reverie, this is a great proof of concept, this time that someone can make believable CGI alone. That's it. There's no story, no substance, and gratuitous camera trickery which would make a freshman cinematography student cringe. All this in no way takes away from the clip being a freakishly impressive accomplishment; it's just very one-dimensional.

Further, what most commentators seem to miss is that apparently Mr Roman took a year off to produce this. Certainly a prudent investment for him, as I'm sure this will open many doors to jobs, and deservedly so. But making a 12-minute music video with fifty thousand or so euros worth of work hours isn't trivial. It will take years and years until this can be done with 3D images and video without a massive investment in time and money - and even then we still need artists to create the story, the substance.

It is extremely rare to find someone who can do it all, and even rarer who's good at more than one aspect of creativity. There's a reason why even the cheapest movies have a crew, rather than a single guy making it. Even the rare coppolas and manns who can produce, write, shoot, and/or direct movies rely on an army of creative experts.

Abdulrahman Aljabri

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 307
    • http://www.aljabri.com
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2010, 12:04:14 pm »

Help me understand here it seems from many comments here that CGI is only economically viable versus photography when there are 3d models available for the other work to be built upon it. That would explain why cars and architecture can easily migrate to CGI, because part of the product design involves making 3d models. And that also explains why CGI would be useless for things like food and people which cannot be easily 3d molded and animated. Hope I got that right.
Logged
MY SITE: AL

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2010, 04:58:55 am »

Quote from:  Abdulrahman Aljabri
Help me understand here it seems from many comments here that CGI is only economically viable versus photography when there are 3d models available for the other work to be built upon it. That would explain why cars and architecture can easily migrate to CGI, because part of the product design involves making 3d models. And that also explains why CGI would be useless for things like food and people which cannot be easily 3d molded and animated. Hope I got that right.

It isn't quite that black and white... There is work done on CG humans, but it is incredibly labour intensive, and I have not yet seen work where you couldn't tell that it was fake at some point. Still, there are many valid reasons for using CG. With humans, one reason would be that the person is not available any more, like the digital Marlene project. Another might be that they cannot participate for other reasons, and so on. I have also seen 100% convincing food CG, but it would have been so much easier with photography. Sometimes something is done just to prove that it can be done, which is a valid reason, albeit not so extensible to everyday situations.

In general, the automotive and architectural fields are natural for CG, but there are other fields where it could also be used. One reason for using CG which already came up in this thread is to do something which cannot be done with photography, such as impossible camera moves. Another is to get a bunch of elements together which in real life might not come together in the time allotted for the shot. One example could be if a sick tree has been cut down in front of a building, but you want to have it in the shot, and so on.

Ultimately, the CG side of things will continue to advance at a rapid pace, but certain things will always remain very labour-intensive and better suited to photography.

For the artists, there is also the consideration of which is more satisfying, and photography has a huge advantage there. Sitting in front of a computer for hours, days, months, perfecting a model or animation, or a look, is not nearly as satisfying for most people as being on-site.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2010, 07:09:21 am »

Quote from: carstenw
It isn't quite that black and white... There is work done on CG humans, but it is incredibly labour intensive, and I have not yet seen work where you couldn't tell that it was fake at some point.

I was quite convinced at this tech demo after the actress/spokesperson first explains the process, here.

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Hard to believe it is CG
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2010, 05:01:53 am »

Quote from: feppe
I was quite convinced at this tech demo after the actress/spokesperson first explains the process, here.

I have seen that demo before, and it is impressive, but keep in mind that contrary to the claims that her whole face is being simulated by technology (whatever that is supposed to mean), in fact they have motion-captured a specific performance, and replaced the face of the actress with a model of... herself. These are not very trying circumstances. I am willing to bet that the time invested was non-trivial, and there is much which cannot be automated. Now try to extend that to a digital character in a movie, or some other, larger scenario. Sure, technology advances inexorably, but people still need to do much of the work.

As for the rendering in that movie, something is not right about the lighting on her teeth; it is too bright. This is a common problem.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up