*promote me baby

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 1:42pm PST - promote requested by original submitter spoco2.

I'm not slacking off, my CGI is rendering.

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by spoco2.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm not slacking off, my CGI is rendering.


Mind if I use that the next time my gf tells me my belly is getting bigger?

You can use the same method with programming. >> ^TheGenk:

>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not slacking off, my CGI is rendering.

Mind if I use that the next time my gf tells me my belly is getting bigger?

FAKE!.....Wait, I mean REAL!

Fake...I've never seen a kitchen that nice and clean.

I have that T-shirt...
>> ^dan00108:

You can use the same method with programming. >> ^TheGenk:
>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not slacking off, my CGI is rendering.

Mind if I use that the next time my gf tells me my belly is getting bigger?

If it's real... damned impressive.

Goodness, how long did that take to render?

The latest in computer generated graphics... Coming soon: Iron Chef: The Movie

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is stating the obvious, but it's the imperfections that make it look real - like the browning apple half. This is what will get us out of the uncanny valley for human CGI as well.

This is also stating the obvious, but subsurface scattering, per-particle physics, lens synthesis, and all the photon tracing in the world won't get 3D out of the Uncanny Valley. This is very pretty, tho.

Was anyone else first though about applications for such cgi use ... Porn ?

Anybody know what software they used was? For some reason is looks like Modo to me.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Was anyone else first though about applications for such cgi use ... Porn ?


I could see someone taking this technology and make a KILLING on celebrity porn.

Where's the proof that it's CGI? The posters word?

Give me wireframe overlay or side by side, otherwise "didn't happen".

If it truly is CGI, then we've come along way... that is until you try to do CGI with living creatures, and motion, then most of the time it looks like shit.

It's so beautiful, it already is porn.

>> ^Gutspiller:

Where's the proof that it's CGI? The posters word?
Give me wireframe overlay or side by side, otherwise "didn't happen".
If it truly is CGI, then we've come along way... that is until you try to do CGI with living creatures, and motion, then most of the time it looks like shit.


Although it does look realistic , the Technological side of this is not that amazing (in the sense that technalogcaly speaking you can and have been able to render stuff to this degree for at least 17 months even 2 years. for example you can get this quality of render using Vray with 3ds max.

the talent is in how an artist uses the tools to make something look realistic with the tools at hand.

there are 19th century paintings that look pretty photo real.

one of the central resions as to why this looks real is that the majority of it is macro shots , macro camera angles and views are not something we see and exsperance on an every day level and look quite abstract , and thus its harder for sum-one to pick up how fake something looks. ( macro photographs and films often look cg even when they are not ,

A perfect example but in the opposite sense would be how Tilt shift photography makes things looks like plastic models.


all in all nice shots though regardless of how real it looks its just a nicely composed peace of footage.

He hasn't shown it for this video yet, but here and here are his making of videos for this and this (first really just an extract of the second, longer video).

You put the right textures, the right lighting, the right lens effects, bloom, translucency etc. etc. and yeah, you can do this.

Well, when I say 'you', I certainly wouldn't include 'me'... I remember making some 3D renders back when I was a kid and thinking they were just awesome, but they look like kiddy drawings now. (well I'm sure they would, lost the images a long time ago)

>> ^Gutspiller:

Where's the proof that it's CGI? The posters word?
Give me wireframe overlay or side by side, otherwise "didn't happen".
If it truly is CGI, then we've come along way... that is until you try to do CGI with living creatures, and motion, then most of the time it looks like shit.

So, assuming its real (why not), why would someone spend the resources to render fruit and rocks. It just seems a rather odd and frankly, boring choice.

Hmm, this makes me think the theory that we all live in a simulated universe can be possible if this video can confuse us sifters.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality)

>> ^Engels:

So, assuming its real (why not), why would someone spend the resources to render fruit and rocks. It just seems a rather odd and frankly, boring choice.


because to get these sorts of shots with a camera requires , meticulousness set up and loads of time doing things repeatedly to get the end result. If you are an animator or have moderate industry exsperance with doing comercail 3d work this sort of thing is probably faster to do in CG than with a camera. it depends on your skill set and equipment to hand as to which approach you would take.

stuff like the water effects and fluid physics are easer to do with software (if you have a very specific desired result) and there are many plug ins that will do a good job of this.

People are over hyping the technicality of modaling and texturing and rendering these objects , its really not that hard to model texture and animate this stuff (if you work in 3d day to day) the key things the guy has got spot on are lighting , composition and editing.

If you are intrestead in general CG stuff check out http://forums.cgsociety.org/
also check out 3ds max , XSI , blender , cinima 4d and Adobe After Effects CS5.

Fucking fantastic. Someone is rich, or soon to be so.

>> ^Engels:

So, assuming its real (why not), why would someone spend the resources to render fruit and rocks. It just seems a rather odd and frankly, boring choice.


It's an advertisement for a company that makes fancy kitchen surfaces. The crystals are the quartz that their product is made out of. Apparently it has some King Midas like properties as well; everything that touches it becomes a crystal. But those pepper shards do look pretty tasty.

http://www.silestoneusa.com/news/introduction.cfm

without even looking at the title of this video i can tell this is FAKE!

>> ^Engels:

So, assuming its real (why not), why would someone spend the resources to render fruit and rocks. It just seems a rather odd and frankly, boring choice.



Well, given that it's an ad for a kitchen design company, I'd say it would have been pretty stupid of him to render anything other than kitcheny-type things.

*length=57

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 57 secs - length declared by radx.