Hard to believe it is CG

[LiamStrain]

One thing that I saw with a potential furniture client, is they shot a room (photography) then rendered new furniture into it (saving the cost of building multiple configurations and materials options). I know they have been doing this in Automotive for a while, but this was the first time I'd seen it in an architectural setting.

I think one thing we'll start to see, is more of this kind of combination of technologies. Rather than the death of photography proper, I think it will instead morph in an integral part of the process of combined image making techniques.

[Carsten W]

One thing that I saw with a potential furniture client, is they shot a room (photography) then rendered new furniture into it (saving the cost of building multiple configurations and materials options). I know they have been doing this in Automotive for a while, but this was the first time I'd seen it in an architectural setting.

I think one thing we'll start to see, is more of this kind of combination of technologies. Rather than the death of photography proper, I think it will instead morph in an integral part of the process of combined image making techniques.

Yes, that matches my thoughts. Product photography, especially for new and possibly not-yet-built products, will go to CG. Not food photography though. There will be fields where CG works, and fields where it doesn't.

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=John-S)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (John-S)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]Every time I turn around, I see the same old stuff, boring landscapes hashed out a million fold before, people thinking that emulating a few styles is their path in photography, Dave Hill look, HDR, whatever, same old ideas of what the fine art market is.[/quote]

John, if you think that bad photography is going away, I am sad to disappoint you, but I am certain it won't

[haefnerphoto]

Well, that movie was impressive!!  Having consulted on CG projects as a lighting director (car rendering) I know that the time involved in producing that piece was considerable.  But who cares, it's the end result that matters and Alex has proven how great his talent and capabilities are.  Now back to the conversation of it's application in advertising (commercial photography) and I know that it's forever changed the business of product photography.  Ten years ago there were automotive photographers everywhere, some alot more talented than others but there was so much business that the even the less capable shooters had enough business to make a living.  Five years ago the business had already changed, the basic images that every manufacturer needed now could be accomplished with the same data that the engineers created for their CAD data.  No more vehicle transportation, vehicle prep, preproduction vehicles for marketing (at least, alot less of them) and no more photographers invoices.  This knocked a few guys out of the business.  Now as it turns out the cost savings were minimal because the cost of creating the CG and the additional retouching the images required (due to usually either math issues or operator issues) was considerable.  But if the vehicle only existed as a clay model (at best) it worked very well and it still does.  In fact, the quality of CG is equal to what I can do.  Did I really write that?  Well, maybe it's almost as good.  Anyways, it still takes alot of time and the day in and day out renderings don't look that good althought the consumer would probably not know the difference.  Luckily, my clients do and in addition to quality, a big advantage automotive photographers have now is speed.  If I have a retoucher working with the client (and myself) as we shoot, I can produce up to 3 vehicle majors and a few details in a long day in the studio.  The next day the retouching is wrapped up and the project goes to the printer or online.  This scenario isn't ideal but happens more often than I'd like, it also doesn't apply to car launches where everyone from the vehicle designer to advertising manager to creative directors need to be involved (that slows things down a bit).  But still most of the day in/day out images of vehicles are now rendered and that's taken a number of the remaining photographers out of cars and into another area of expertise.  Anyways, there's no denying the impact that CGI has had on my business but I've had worse years before it even existed (2008 was one of my business's best, out of 29 years).  So I just work harder, try to make my client's life a little easier and diversify at the same time, this, hopefully, will allow me to work the rest of my life!!  Jim

[pschefz]

adobe knows why they are putting the biggest advances in photoshop in 3D tools.....

people and animals...hair in general is the hardest to do...almost unlimited surfaces to render....so this will take a while...

it makes so much sense for cars....shiny surfaces that see everything...i remember when i got an email for a location! service...specialising in CG generated locations....

anyway, i think the movie is great, yes a little heavy in the techyness of it all, but that is what it is supposed to be.... a showreel, nobody will hire him to direct a feature...

i noticed one shot: the camera very slowly comes up the stairs and the shot is a time lapse shot....a very nice, subtle effect...i don't think this is doable with a camera? you would have to move the camera up the stairs a single foot and take several hours to go that distance....

for impossible shots done without CG...."soi cuba" opening shot...one shot....also: "andre rublov" (tarkovsky) i think it is the 3rd part, opening scene, the bell maker.....one shot....i don't know how these guys did that....breathtaking....both great movies btw.....

[Sheldon N]

Sweet movie, very visually stunning.

I did notice that the windmills are spinning backwards at 7:45 though... a little bit of an "oops" when you've put a full year into a project.

[David Grover / Capture One]

It is certainly a discussion worth having.  I come across CGI more and more on my visits.

To give a you a few examples (where photography is still important)  ;-)...

A 'Survey' company here in the UK does a lot of laser scanning of buildings.  To give you one example of many...

They had to survey a church in disrepair in Europe.  So they first laser scan the whole building, then photograph sections of it with an H3D39.  The laser scan and images are combined to provide a environment project workers can visit.. ie a Virtual Church with massive resolution.

So if you are the stone mason, you can zoom into any part of the structure to asses it.  Bearing in mind the stone walls are made up of many 39MP captures.

So many people can calaborate on a project like this from all sides of the world without visiting it.  Sometimes they use 35mm but on this kind of work where they need the upmost detail they use MF.

The same company also visits movie sets to capture textures.  I didn't know (Carsten most likely does) but a lot of movie sets are now only one storey high - if they need a taller building, then the texture of Storey 1 can be copied up and up and up!  So I saw a whole movie set at one level, and then the final rendering of the scene.  Again this was captured by an H3D39.

As a final example some Ikea 'photographs' (One of our largest clients) are part CGI, part photography - sometimes using textures captured by camera.

I think photographers should have a serious look at...

http://www.bunkspeed.com/index.html

I downloaded a trial version of Hypershot and rendered a pretty impressive looking diamond in about 30 minutes.  This was an older version of the software with a truly appalling user interface so it took me half a day to figure out how to use it!  I think it has come a long way since then.  

I don't think it will replace photography but it is a way to combine your skill of capturing high resolution images but doing more with them in applications like HyperShot.

Going back to the Diamond I would not have been skilled enough to shoot it as a photographer.  On the bunkspeed forum there are some quite impressive jewellery examples which people have posted.  There are some duff ones too, but the good ones are interesting to look at.

Here are some I was looking at a while back...

http://hypershot.hyperboards.com/index.php...mp;topic_id=763

David

EDIT - I see there are some issues with Bunkspeed and the licensing of a core technology from the developer who designed the ray tracing algorithms, so it looks like you can't download anything right now.  Check their blog for updates.

[Phil Indeblanc]

One thing we certainly agreed upon that many people just don't grasp that PHOTOGRAPHY is being redefined at the moment and honestly nobody knows exactly what it is becoming, how different it will be used, who will use it and pay for it differently from before, but the fact remains WE do not have control of where photography is going. Consumers, advertisers, content users, businesses all will play the role of morphing photography as we know it. We are along for the ride to give them what they want.


It is changing, it will change from what most are doing right now w.r.t. to selling imagery. Alex's video represents one avenue of real potential change. Instead of blinders, might as well put on some 3D glasses to help enlighten our perception of the future.

John, I don't just believe what you are saying from your first posts.  I am experiencing it.  

There are a number of industries that have dropped 70 to90% now done in CGI.  the model is already made, and can be tweaked. No need to remake it.  Shoot a house....different house, just add a room, change the roof..Done. Change color...zap (with reflections of color).

Its a good thing having something to fall back on to fill some gaps. 3, 7 maybe 10 years, and you too will feel it creeping in.  Sure there are always weddings and highschools one can turn to (no jabs at you)....then again, as John said....

Very nice video.  I guess I have seen this and know the abilities for a few years now. .. not so much on a tech achievement level. (The Movie Godzilla years back was a lot of 3D, using SoftImage, a MS software) Though impressive enough to read through and appreciat the work. Beautifully done.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Carsten,



Thank you very much for explaining the process. Basically this guy built the world he is using for each scene in 3d studio for example and then created textures for everything and finally added movement. Much like video games are made, except this has realistic textures, correct?


Thanks

[Carsten W]

Thank you very much for explaining the process. Basically this guy built the world he is using for each scene in 3d studio for example and then created textures for everything and finally added movement. Much like video games are made, except this has realistic textures, correct?

You are welcome, it was a nice change of pace to write about something I know about instead of asking questions about MFDBs

I see several companies mentioned in this thread which are customers of the company I work for. Interesting. For example, David, IKEA is also one of our customers, but for the CG part

Video games are getting better and better, but generally to texture whole levels or worlds you cannot use the same high resolution that you would for offline rendering, like the video of this thread. The same goes for model polygon counts, and so on. If you need to render 30-60 frames per second, your approach is very different than for realism. There are also areas which exist in between, with a few frames per second but higher fidelity, like the SketchUp models used in Google Earth for example. Bunkspeed is neat software, but aimed very narrowly. Other software is not so fast, but handles more general work.

Anyway, yes, CG will certainly take over some areas traditionally done with photography, at least partly, mostly focused around product shots and perhaps architecture. As David mentioned, this will also sometimes open up new areas of photography, like capturing the textures for the church, and so on.

[Brad Proctor]

Amazing video!

[bcooter]

One thing we certainly agreed upon that many people just don't grasp that PHOTOGRAPHY is being redefined at the moment and honestly nobody knows exactly what it is becoming, how different it will be used, who will use it and pay for it differently from before, but the fact remains WE do not have control of where photography is going. Consumers, advertisers, content users, businesses all will play the role of morphing photography as

Once I became fully immersed in shooting digital I noticed a change in the way we worked.

About 7 years ago I was shooting an ad campaign on a movie lot in LA and I walked past the stage next door where they were shooting a Steve Martin scene and noticed how similar our still set was to the movie set.

Obviously they were working in a  larger scope, with more crew, larger sets and the ability to move the camera in fluid motion, but the differences were small.  We had gaffers, many multiple lights, tech stations for viewing and I knew then and there the still world had changed and it wouldn't be too long until the mediums finally crossed paths, or started bumping into each other,  at least on some projects.

Sure, there are still shoots where we go out with a small crew, though small has gone from photographer, stylist and assistant and moved to photographer, producer,  3 assistants, gaffer, two techs, one video operator,  3 wardrobe and prop stylists, hair, makeup (usually multiple teams), with multiple cameras and images are shot knowing that we will change it, manipulate it, add to it, in post.

In fact it's not unusual for the post production budget to get close to the shoot budget.  

What that means, I'm not sure, other than the cost of production has gone up dramatically and everything is exponentially larger.

I do think the role of photographer has changed to that of part director, part special effects supervisor, part content provider and with the advent of the 5d2, motion image director and/or camera operator.

In fact our complete project briefs have changed.   Years ago (maybe 3) when you were hired you knew exactly what the image was for.  A national print run, and/or outdoor, but you knew where everything was going, what size, format, usually a detailed layout.

Now, we shoot, usually the project brief resembles a storyboard more than a print layout, the use is somewhat non pre determined.  It might be a package or in-store shoot, it may go to print, it may be interactive, it definitely will have some form of web play.

And unless your a complete hands off type of guy, your going to probably have 3 days of computer direction for every shoot day.  

It is just not unusual to have a complete photograph that is a composite of 5 or 6 images, so even though they may be shot on a 24x36 camera the real format is what . . . let me add this up . . .  96mm x 144mm give or take a few mm.

Maybe that's why I don't understand the talk of formats.  I do understand that some cameras are better suited for some tasks, but in reality the format is one of the last things I think about.

The only thing that limits us now is fast universal bandwidth.  In one of our studios we have fiber optics and I can move 400mb through the web almost as fast as I can transfer it to a hard drive.

In another we have two standard dsl lines and going back to them is like going back to phone line bandwidth.

The last large project we just completed we moved over 2 1/2 terabytes of data between our team and the client.  All deliveries of 125 composited, layered, finished out images were delivered through the web.

So once we have some form of universal wireless fast bandwidth that will play from handset to desktop computer in almost real time, the expectations and our roles will change even further.

I do know that the term cutting edge just doesn't exist.  There is no edge anymore.     Today you just keep up so you don't get passed by and I'm not referring to camera formats, megapixels or limited software solutions.

So to segway into another topic of the Hasselblad clock, it better be ticking on something spectacular, not just a 60mpx still camera.


IMO

BC

[Phil Indeblanc]

The last large project we just completed we moved over 2 1/2 terabytes of data between our team and the client.  All deliveries of 125 composited, layered, finished out images were delivered through the web.

Client saved a lot on tax, according the laws in the states

[BernardLanguillier]

Well... it does have some large format cameras in it.

Very nice indeed.

This might not be a thread to all areas of photography, for the very reason that the link between photography and reality is important for many of these, but there are clearly some domains where there will be major impacts.

I hate to say it, but fine art images are likely to be among the first to be hit. I might invest in a 3dsmax license instead of a new tripod...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Phil Indeblanc]

I think all that said, after it saturates, consumers will understand, appreciate a photo....and look for true photo images to depict what a brand is and what they are selling.
...and perhaps ads will disclose real and fantasy.. Something below the ad like.... (Image of product actual photograph, not a CGI rendering).  

OK ...so Art Directors, Agencies!....start recommending that to clients :-)

I too will be considering a 3D software very soon.  ...seriously.

I started 3D Max years back...even ATT had a 3D software I played around with. They maya came out.  I have made some models and such looong time ago, also using character studio, but this is ages ago, and would love to get reaquanted.
I had avoided it, but it is not something you really can...and it is more apparant to me now.

[archivue]

alex roman

[Phil Indeblanc]

Unfortunately consumers are very poor judges to appreciate photos. Endless crap photos splashed across countless tabloid style mags that consumers just eat up, can't get enough of. And when it comes to buying photography, consumers play it safe, quite evident in a lot of formulaic work in the fields of portrait and wedding work.

I strongly agree with Bernard, I have seen a lot of very nice looking fine art images, which because of the surreal nature of the content (nature, landscapes, abstracts) someone could just as easily conceive and produce in CG. As an example, the Antarctica trip many took a few years back with Michael, created a plethora of similar imagery from its participants. many of those shots could be created in CG. Would consumers care, can't predict that entirely. But if it's being used to sell a product, they won't care. If it's presented as fine art with no further information, who is to know. Is the buyer paying for a large print of a surreal locale that a person actually trekked to and froze to bring back such images or is the image itself strong enough in quality, look, moment that the buyer just wants the piece for the feeling the artwork invokes in him/herself, that can be enjoyed on a wall for years. There was a time when photography didn't even exist. There was a time when CG didn't even exist. Photography is accepted to great extents. CG is being accepted to great extents as well, in motion pictures, video games. Who is to say that acceptance can't bridge to other uses.

I have witnessed comments coming from painters who feel strongly about photography in general not being a fine art at all. Their reasoning was complete B.S. but they convinced themselves of such and nothing was moving them. So it all boils down to what the mob feels, that's what moves most things.

I don't see why there would need to be any disclaimers as to whether it's a "real" photo or CG. Beauty photography couldn't be more fake, with retouching nowadays people only seemed shocked for a nanosecond that something was "shopped" and then they continue to buy the same products and magazines that depict the false reality. And David's comments about Ikea and their use of photography and CG says plenty. I hear no one complaining that Ikea uses nearly perfect but not real images (at least not shot with a camera) of their products.

Look at the last Van Cleef and Arpel ad....I don't know who or what agency did that ad....but it is so lacking of anything they made in the past of quality.  That ad (Birdcage with grass,  is such a DOWNER...I used to consider VCArpel as a high end product....They have not only cut corner or budget, they Chopped ....their credibility as a luxury brand at stake?  

I would think at some point the render vs the quality of production could be in question?

[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.

[Phil Indeblanc]

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.

....make the floor a bit trans, and add a light.  Think of whatever you build in 3d as you would actually create in real life.

[tho_mas]

Is this possible?

unless I did get you wrong...: no. If you shoot everything you are working with 2D objects. So you can not add light as on a 3D object and you can not change the perspective.
You need the elements as 3D data and then add light, texture (texture can be and often is 2D) and whatever...

[LiamStrain]

Tho_mas is echoing what I was thinking. Until you created a 3D model, you cannot accurately map light and shadow. You can use your image as the texture map on the 3D model, but without the 3D data, you have nothing to work with.

So you need to created 3D objects of your people, even if using shot information, in order to add them into the scene. Depending on the scale though, with a good texture map, you could probably get away with a relatively simple object.