>> And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for 
>> an AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting 
>> something like this, for instance:
>>
>> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
>>
>     Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar 
> to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines and 
> with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look at the 
> special effects of films from before the CG era!)

That may well be; still, it it will be a /hell/ lot of more effort, 
especially if you intend to make it look realistic indeed. And you can 
do a lot of faking in movies by giving the viewer no time to look at all 
the details.

Here's another one that will give you difficulty to reproduce with your 
digicam:

http://www.oyonale.com/image.php?code=319&mode=info&section=2003&lang=en


>     Then look at this image by the same author:
>
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_November-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg

> 
> 
>     It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how 
> would you do it without 3D rendering?

That's something I'm much more willing to accept in a 3D rendering contest.

Still, it does not make me go "whoa! this is the high art of 3D 
rendering" - except for the volumetric effects. (It actually happens to 
be a style invented by CG animation studios to avoid the "uncanny valley".)

Post a reply to this message