Author Topic: why aren't renderers realistic?  (Read 290 times)

2021-10-10, 01:23:37

Feodor

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
I've always been tormented by one question, why do renderers end up being unrealistic? Yes, there are renders that look similar to a photo, but when you look at a real photo, it is difficult to confuse it with computer graphics.
Is there a problem with the physics of light? Problem with textures? In AA filters? Is the problem in the elaboration of objects? . But even objects created using photometry do not look 100% realistic. 99.98% of the works are not given out by realism, and 0.02% are recognized if they are compared with reality. Where is the Achilles' heel and why is there still no render that would realistically be able to render an empty room without details and at the same time it looked like a photograph, even if it was just a white clean room?

2021-10-10, 15:20:13
Reply #1

burnin

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1192
    • View Profile
For commercial work "good enough" is it. Those who seek better, know it only gets more expensive the more detail is added, so demands lower. 

Then, on creator's side, there just aren't many willing to take the path and, I also think while walking, observing, realizing more & more...
most ask same question....

Guess everyone has different priorities.

Once upon a time...