This woman...

[merper]

http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-021818L&rand=3172&t=jpg&m=02&y=2007&srv=img2

Computer generated image or real picture?
Hint: Check what forum you're in.


http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/max/songhyekyo/

[ChunkyC]

Wow. As far as digital characters go, she sure beats Jar-Jar Binks.

[Ordinary_Guy]

Wild. Give it another 5 years and she'll be animateable... much to the consternation of every working actor on the planet...

...Which vaguely reminds me of that section from The Running Man (King/de Sauza) where they sup in Ah-nold's face over an unlucky live actor...

[Pthom]

Computer generated image or real picture?
Both. It is a digitally manipulated 3D render. The computer did not generate the image, it only assisted in manipulating one. Without the use of real textures and significant involvement on behalf of the artist (human, not computer), this image wouldn't exist.

As far as I am aware, there are no true computer generated images that look remotely as realistic as does this one. On the other hand, this is an amazing image that could not be produced without the assistance of a computer.

[C.bronco]

Oh yeah, she's real. She's my car pool buddy. Her name is Flo and she works as a real estate agent.

[PeeDee]

There's a video game, whose name I can't remember (despite my twenty minutes of Googling) which released a trailer of a woman talking as an audition for a part. It was all in-game graphics. They were incredibly advanced.

And yet....the crowd responded negatively to it, because despite the really advanced graphics (and the near realism of it all) there was something abuot the near-realism and something about her eyes (lifeless, they were reported) that put the crowd off. The video game developers had backfired and made a game too realistic.

I'll keep trying to find the trailer. It's worth watching.

[PeeDee]

Hah!

It's called "Heavy Rain."

Watch the video. It's fascinating. In that the graphics are stunning, but that makes the little flaws all the more apparent.

(and it's just interesting to watch.)

IGN High Res Version (best to watch) (http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/811/811232/vids_1.html)

YouTube version (not too bad) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyubR1rknBM)

[Shadow_Ferret]

The strands of hair hanging down around her head look fuzzy and out of focus. The rest of her looks real enough though.

well, except for her eyebrows.

And now that I look closely, there's something not quite right about her nose.

And the shadows on her face seems odd.

And gah! Her ear is just grody.

[PeeDee]

I should also mention, the YouTube clip seems to have a bit of a sound problem. It's not syncing up properly. Be assured, that's YouTube and not the game.

[Layla Nahar]

Oh yeah, she's real. She's my car pool buddy. Her name is Flo and she works as a real estate agent.

but I bet you call her Furo-chan!

[Zoombie]

That's pretty awsome.

[Jamesaritchie]

Both would have been my guess. She looks real, but she also looks fake.

[Jamesaritchie]

Both. It is a digitally manipulated 3D render. The computer did not generate the image, it only assisted in manipulating one. Without the use of real textures and significant involvement on behalf of the artist (human, not computer), this image wouldn't exist.

As far as I am aware, there are no true computer generated images that look remotely as realistic as does this one. On the other hand, this is an amazing image that could not be produced without the assistance of a computer.

I don't know. I've met real women who looked every bit this good, and I've seen photos that were every bit this good, probably better, long before there was such a thing as computer manipulation. I don't really see anything all that special here.

[Peggy]

Watch the video. It's fascinating. In that the graphics are stunning, but that makes the little flaws all the more apparent. It looks to me like she's a resident of the uncanny valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley).

[WildScribe]

Her hair and shirt look computer gen, but all in all it is scary.

[WildScribe]

Hah!

It's called "Heavy Rain."

Watch the video. It's fascinating. In that the graphics are stunning, but that makes the little flaws all the more apparent.

(and it's just interesting to watch.)

IGN High Res Version (best to watch) (http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/811/811232/vids_1.html)

YouTube version (not too bad) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyubR1rknBM)

Kinda cool. The mouth and hands moved funny, and you're right, the eyes were lifeless and strange. But it's still pretty cool what they can do nowadays.

[loquax]

CG has got to the point where it's hard to tell the difference between real and fake. But then again, so has photorealistic painting, which has been around a lot longer than CG.

The thing they've yet to crack is animation, which is why people don't take videogame screenshots that seriously any more. I remember a really positive reaction to the new Tiger Woods game - that the figure looked almost indistinguishable from the real guy. Unfortunately when he moved his face he looked like an android from a horror movie.

[PeeDee]

The thing they've yet to crack is animation, which is why people don't take videogame screenshots that seriously any more. I remember a really positive reaction to the new Tiger Woods game - that the figure looked almost indistinguishable from the real guy. Unfortunately when he moved his face he looked like an android from a horror movie.

And yet, some of the animation is really, really good. For example, the Grand Theft Auto games have gorgeous animation, yet the graphics have always been shoddy.

(although the teaser trailer for GTA: IV looks gorgeous)

[Lycius]

I don't know. I've met real women who looked every bit this good, and I've seen photos that were every bit this good, probably better, long before there was such a thing as computer manipulation. I don't really see anything all that special here.

That would be because you apparently don't know anything about 3D modeling or animations.

You can't take a photograph and animate it. You CAN take that image and animate it because it's not a picture. It's a 3D model. Making a 3D rendering that you pretty much can't differentiate from an actual photograph takes incredible talent.

[Nangleator]

I am a 3D professional, and I visit sites daily that have similar works in progress from professionals and hobbyists. The quality doesn't surprise me, and sometimes it takes a very good eye to tell the difference between real and 3D.

With inanimate objects, give up. I've fooled myself with some of my own work. I wouldn't enter any 'guess the 3D picture' contests.

Check out this tutorial (http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4006), if you like. It's a fantasy character, but the realism is right up there with the original post.

[Nangleator]

It's called "Heavy Rain."
That's some butt ugly animation.

In their defense, it looks like it's real-time rendered on game hardware, and in that case, developed under a tight deadline. That makes it far from cutting edge animation.

Steven Hagg Stahlberg did better stuff all alone back in the last millenium.

[Inkdaub]

If that picture was anywhere but in the sci-fact room noone would be able to tell it wasn't a real woman.