Sign in to follow this  
Superkalle

Perfect renders - can it be done?

Recommended Posts

I created a separate topic of this:

All I can say is that renders you guys produce in this topic are just plain outstanding. Does any of you know if it's possible to make renders that are so good that it's impossible to distinguish from a photo? So I guess I'm thinking with dust speckles and all. Has it ever been done (also outside the LEGO domain)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that renders you guys produce in this topic are just plain outstanding. Does any of you know if it's possible to make renders that are so good that it's impossible to distinguish from a photo? So I guess I'm thinking with dust speckles and all. Has it ever been done (also outside the LEGO domain)?

The render that I always remembered since I first saw it is this one. It's just awesome :classic:

In my opinion this is the most realistic Lego render I've ever seen. The only things that doesn't look very real in the picture are the threads.

You should also take a look at some of his other renders, most of them are very realistic too :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that renders you guys produce in this topic are just plain outstanding. Does any of you know if it's possible to make renders that are so good that it's impossible to distinguish from a photo? So I guess I'm thinking with dust speckles and all. Has it ever been done (also outside the LEGO domain)?

Well outside the lego domain it has been done numerous times, just look at your average Hollywood blockbuster. CGI is basically rendered models, just take a look at the latest Transformer movie. All the bots are renders.

Inside the Lego domain, Legolijntje posted a good example of one. But I think with enough tinkering and trying we'll get there eventually. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any of you know if it's possible to make renders that are so good that it's impossible to distinguish from a photo? So I guess I'm thinking with dust speckles and all. Has it ever been done (also outside the LEGO domain)?

To do so in POV-Ray might take either some ingenious scripting or a lot of patience to place the particles by hand, so to speak.

The render that I always remembered since I first saw it is this one. It's just awesome :classic:

In my opinion this is the most realistic Lego render I've ever seen. The only things that doesn't look very real in the picture are the threads.

That render, and this Ferrari F1 Racing car, are some of the best I've ever seen, as far as virtual Lego goes.

Inside the Lego domain, Legolijntje posted a good example of one. But I think with enough tinkering and trying we'll get there eventually. :classic:

I had a little play around with a previous model I posted in this thread and came up with this. It uses HDR lighting, radiosity and focal blur, in the aim to heighten the level of realism. If only I could get the dust particles and greasy fingerprints to show! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

That render, and this Ferrari F1 Racing car, are some of the best I've ever seen, as far as virtual Lego goes.

[...]

That render looks fantastic too! :thumbup: And the description says it only took 5 hours to render. And it even looks better (in my opinion) than some of the 100 hour renders created with LDD to POVray *huh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well outside the lego domain it has been done numerous times, just look at your average Hollywood blockbuster. CGI is basically rendered models, just take a look at the latest Transformer movie. All the bots are renders.

Inside the Lego domain, Legolijntje posted a good example of one. But I think with enough tinkering and trying we'll get there eventually. :classic:

Yeah, the advancement in computer generated graphics is just awesome these day. But I'm thinking about photographs and if a rendered image can be made so it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to distinguish from a photo. I mean, if you zoom in on a photo you can always spot small blemishes (color deviations in bricks, dust speckles, finger prints etc). So, I'm basically asking for cases where someone would enter a render in a MOC contest, and it would be completely and utterly impossible to spot that it's a render. Has such renders ever been made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's ever been made (although I don't think so), but it's possible for sure. I mean, you probably have to model everything by hand in a program from e.g. AutoDesk and you have to pay a lot of attention to detail (although these days more and more can be automated), but you can get a "perfect" image.

In the end it are all pixels (except vector images), so you can also make the image youself pixel by pixel :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the advancement in compute generated graphics is just awesome these day. But I'm think about photographs and if a rendered image can be made so it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to distinguish from a photo. I mean, if you zoom in on a photo you can always spot small blemishes (color deviations in bricks, dust speckles, finger prints etc). So, I'm basically asking for cases where someone would enter a render in a MOC contest, and it would be completely and utterly impossible to spot that it's a render. Has such renders ever been made?

By fans? Probably not. I'm sure it could be done with the resources TLG has devoted to some of their renders they use in product ads and official product shots. Just consider some BIONICLE posters which have the sets rendered with imperfections that don't even appear in the physical product, such as scratches and other battle damage. But they have no incentive to do so. Why replicate real-life imperfections when you're striving for ideal presentation?

The case is similar with fans. In this case, fans might have more of an incentive to aim for hyperrealism, but not often enough of an incentive to override the complexity of the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the advancement in computer generated graphics is just awesome these day. But I'm thinking about photographs and if a rendered image can be made so it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to distinguish from a photo. I mean, if you zoom in on a photo you can always spot small blemishes (color deviations in bricks, dust speckles, finger prints etc). So, I'm basically asking for cases where someone would enter a render in a MOC contest, and it would be completely and utterly impossible to spot that it's a render. Has such renders ever been made?

I would say such render would be quite "time" expensive. I have seen algorithms that generate trees with leaves or lawn with randomly shaped grass leaves, so generating of dust particles should be possible. But it would take less time to use some post processing and add dust and fingerprints by photo processing software.

Good lighting is probably much more important for realistic look than the dust and fingerprints, since many people before taking model pictures for some competition clean prefectly whole model so on pictures it is as clear as rendered, but material and lighting realism is what makes it realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can usually tell a render by the trans pieces, they always look "off". Maybe too perfect or too clean, whatever it is it always stands out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you all know, there is often a rule in MOC contests that digital entries are not allowed. In some respects, it's a strange rule. I mean, shouldn't it really be the design and engineering competence that should say who shall win, and not your wallet or ability to put plastic bricks together? And no, before you chop me to pieces - I am an avid ABS lover and personally not overly fond of "digital entries" - there is something about the devotion and dedication in building with the real thing. :classic:But an interesting question is off course - if a digital entry can't be distinguished from a non-digital, then what happens? Will/shall the rule of non-digital entries be skipped. I just find the question interesting on a philosophical planeFor reference I'm attaching two photos. One un-touched TLG product image (don't ask where I got it, because I don't remember...but it was on the internet somewhere) and the same one photoshopped (downloaded from LEGO.com). If you look at the original one, you can see the colors are less saturated, and you see shadows on the ground etc. The post-processed version looks better, but you can still see the dust speckles, inperfections in the bricks, injections points etc etc. I'm also attaching the LXF for this set.So the question is: is it possible to make a render that is completely impossible to tell appart from the raw, un-touched TLG product image.

5766 Log Cabin.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given enough time, skill and CPU power, yes. After all you can just keep iterating small changes till you eventually end up with exactly the same image. Though in truth there is probably a law of diminishing returns when it comes to trying to mimic tiny details.

FWIW I think the problem with digital entries in most competitions is less that they don't look as good, but more that they allow you to construct things which would simply be impossible in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I think the problem with digital entries in most competitions is less that they don't look as good, but more that they allow you to construct things which would simply be impossible in reality.

That is a good point. But I must say I see a lot of really bad MOCs buildt with real LEGO that you can barely touch or they'd fall apart. It is almost like builders try to trumph each other in advanced building technics...and many cases it actually goes to far IHMO. In that sense, a LDD model is more "fair" since it only allows legal connections (i.e. no cheating :tongue:).

@superkalle: I don't see any attached images? :sceptic:

Now it's there :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you all know, there is often a rule in MOC contests that digital entries are not allowed. In some respects, it's a strange rule. I mean, shouldn't it really be the design and engineering competence that should say who shall win, and not your wallet or ability to put plastic bricks together? And no, before you chop me to pieces - I am an avid ABS lover and personally not overly fond of "digital entries" - there is something about the devotion and dedication in building with the real thing. :classic:But an interesting question is off course - if a digital entry can't be distinguished from a non-digital, then what happens? Will/shall the rule of non-digital entries be skipped. I just find the question interesting on a philosophical planeFor reference I'm attaching two photos. One un-touched TLG product image (don't ask where I got it, because I don't remember...but it was on the internet somewhere) and the same one photoshopped (downloaded from LEGO.com). If you look at the original one, you can see the colors are less saturated, and you see shadows on the ground etc. The post-processed version looks better, but you can still see the dust speckles, inperfections in the bricks, injections points etc etc. I'm also attaching the LXF for this set.So the question is: is it possible to make a render that is completely impossible to tell appart from the raw, un-touched TLG product image.

I think the reason for the rule against digital and non-digital entries competing in the same contest is that it takes a certain amount of experience with both types of model to really judge them against each other fairly. Some sites, for instance, prefer contest entries be "purist" (no modified or non-production parts), which can be difficult to enforce with a digital entry unless the contest requirements also require a parts list, and even that may require the contest judges or organizers to have an impeccable understanding of the LEGO color palette, parts palette, etc.

There's also the fact that with a less-than-perfect render, there can easily be distortions of color or appearance that make a model look better or worse than it would in physical form. If digital entries were allowed in a lot of contests, would there be a definite set of standards for using photorealistic renders?

And of course one other big issue is stability/physics. Other than hiding some tape or sticky tack up inside a MOC, there are few ways to make a model defy physics in a photograph. In a digital model, however, unless there is a physics engine present in the software, there's no way to ensure it follows the same rules of stability as a physical model. As a point of example, I could build a giant floating island on a 1x1 footprint with LEGO Digital Designer, but there'd be no way short of building it physically to ensure it will balance correctly on that footprint. Certainly, some physical models can use illegal connections that put parts under tremendous amounts of stress, or can be tremendously flimsy, but the point is that with sufficient time and effort, it is a model that can be physically constructed and displayed.

If renders do get to the point where a perfectly photorealistic render is possible for MOCists to achieve, I don't think it will be enough to change the frequency of "physical-bricks-only" contests. It will simply become a matter of good faith rather than something judges can enforce. Alternatively, it's possible that judges may include a rule about providing evidence your model exists in physical bricks. For instance, they may ask you to provide a video of you holding your model. Even if photorealistic images can be created from a digital model, it would be many years more before a builder could make a photorealistic animation of a digital model in-hand without an implausible amount of time and processing power at their disposal. And if there's still deemed to be a risk of "cheating" by entering a digital model, then the contest organizers or judges can set up live video chat sessions with contest finalists, where they will give the finalists instructions like "hold your model in front of the camera and turn it around" or "flip your model upside-down" that thoroughly eliminate any opportunity to prepare fabricated video evidence in advance.

Overall, there are simply too many differences between physical and digital models for them to be judged against one another fairly in all contests. SOME contests can be held with digital and physical models treated as equivalent, but it's up to the discretion of contest hosts whether they want to be accountable for the added complexity this entails. It will take colossal improvements not in rendering or editing software, but rather in the actual digital building software itself, before that has any hope of changing.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and even that may require the contest judges or organizers to have an impeccable understanding of the LEGO color palette, parts palette, etc.

Very good point!

And of course one other big issue is stability/physics. Other than hiding some tape or sticky tack up inside a MOC, there are few ways to make a model defy physics in a photograph. In a digital model, however, unless there is a physics engine present in the software, there's no way to ensure it follows the same rules of stability as a physical model. As a point of example, I could build a giant floating island on a 1x1 footprint with LEGO Digital Designer, but there'd be no way short of building it physically to ensure it will balance correctly on that footprint. Certainly, some physical models can use illegal connections that put parts under tremendous amounts of stress, or can be tremendously flimsy, but the point is that with sufficient time and effort, it is a model that can be physically constructed and displayed.

Here I think it goes both ways. Physcial models can be cheated with "illegal" connections. Digital with unrealistc physics.

If renders do get to the point where a perfectly photorealistic render is possible for MOCists to achieve, I don't think it will be enough to change the frequency of "physical-bricks-only" contests. It will simply become a matter of good faith rather than something judges can enforce.

Agree, and a very valid point. We actually allready had a case like this at EB a year ago and it was hard to judge if it was fake. So a discussion arised how we should view digital entries.

But the problems is also: You could reason that "if people cheat, then let them do so - nothing we can do". But that won't be much of a concelation for those that came in second place when a digital entry came first. So it will be a judgement issue no matter how.

Overall, there are simply too many differences between physical and digital models for them to be judged against one another fairly in all contests.

The main question is what criteria overall should be used when judging MOC contests

- Design/Look

- Engineering skills

- Using legal techniques

- Money/can buy many bricks

- Having the energy and stamina to build a huge MOC

- etc

So, which of those are most important and does it then matter if you do digital or physical MOCs?

Anyway, going back to topic:

I understand you can do manuall photoshop work, planting dust speckes with a "pair of digital twicers".

But my question was more if there was/is any rendering examples (regardless of domain) where this such ultra-realistic renders have been done, more automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue of legal/illegal connections is pretty much irrelevant to most MOC contests unless the theme of the contest is to create something that could be a hypothetical set. As much as I admire a MOC that solves a design problem using only legal connections, it's nobody's business but the person entering if they want to subject their bricks to stress. Even I have created MOCs where parts are held in by friction-- which in most cases means there's an illegal connection.

There's also the question of how much stress is within brick tolerances. Some BIONICLE and Hero Factory sphere launchers, for instance, will always be bent slightly when a sphere is loaded into them. But this is inherent to the design and functionality of the part. Again, this gets into the sort of info which neither the contest participant nor the contest judge can be expected to know. Is plugging a Modulex brick onto the back of a firefighter's breathing mask legal, or illegal? There are probably plenty of questions like that which not even official LEGO designers could answer.

Ideally, LDD should make illegal connections impossible. In reality, it only does so to a certain extent. The boundaries of parts are not always perfectly defined, and while parts are typically not allowed to be in compression, the software does frequently allow parts to be floating or not firmly attached to studs. There is no consideration in the software forcing click hinges to flex at increments of 22.5 degrees or 15 degrees, nor is there a consideration for which parts are polycarbonate and which are ABS or rubber. Technic parts on LDD can easily be built into constructions that would be impossible in real life to disassemble, or in some cases, to assemble in the first place. Not to mention that there are probably dozens of unintended connections which LDD does not allow but which are not, technically speaking, illegal.

With this many uncertainties regarding both styles of building, it's easy to assume that in the end they balance out somehow, but in reality that's never guaranteed, and if a winning contest entry using one building style utilizes a "loophole" not present in the other, there are going to be unhappy participants.

Back to the topic of rendering "imperfections" into a digital model to make it photorealistic, there's no doubt it is possible. I mentioned imperfections like "battle damage" on some BIONICLE product shots, and truly some of the BIONICLE animations have featured similar imperfections. VFX companies that produce CGI models for live-action films naturally have to be able to render minute details like these, because you can't just add dust and fingerprints to an animated object one frame at a time using Photoshop. But again, it becomes a question of processing power, software proficiency, and time commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right about all the illogical connections allowed today in LDD, but I think for the future we will see that more and more of those will be fixed. My main idea was a little bit that it goes both ways. Physical allows some things that digital doesn't and vice versa. The advantages and disadvantages of physical vs. digital evens out.

Anyway, my conclusions is that for the main judgement critieria (which I belive are Object, Design & Presentation...i.e. a) what it is/the scene/idea, b) does it look good/cool, and c) is it presented in an nice way) it really doesn't matter if it's physical or digital.

(Ugh, I get an uneasy feeling myself when I read what I just wrote, because I like physical! :look:)

On topic:

Question: Is the battle damage, scratches etc done in movies, games etc done with a "randomizer" function, i.e. you can apply "damage" and it will appear on the surface in a random pattern, i.e. if you re-apply it, it will appear differently etc. Or is the damage applied "manually" on the model (i.e. you "paint on" the damage exactly where it should be). and then the image/movie is rendered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of realistic rendering fascinating me from long time, but I've not understood the point of this discussion.

Are we speaking about the chance to realize good looking works, or about the peril that a digital work can be confused with a real one?

PS: about the two images attached by superkalle, I prefer the untouched one. The cleaned one results more "false" and not better looking.

The advantages and disadvantages of physical vs. digital evens out.

I don't think so, for a simple reason: every "illogical connection" in digital designer goes towards an "unrealistic" use of LEGO, while "illegal connections" with real bricks are prefectly real and usable in real life.

Besides, many people, like me, think that the charm of LEGO is a free use of imagination, and that include the search and find of new connections. Only physical limits and fantasy should be the rules.

Note that on the altar of the legal connection even old official sets has been sacrificed. With LDD I can't even reproduce old set I love because some not yet valid technique has been used.

I think that LDD will be not complete until it will not allow "illegal" connections. For lovers of legal connections, LDD could report (with a warning) and count (for inventory) illegal connection, so that builders not only can decide if use that connections or not, but became aware of what an illegal connection is and why exists. "Education" without coercion.

About contests, I think a reason (obviously not the only one) to differentiate real and digital MOCs is the "collection value" of some bricks. Some bricks can enrich a MOC but can be not easy to have. With the digital creation, all pieces have the same value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I've not understood the point of this discussion.

Good question.

So, in the spirit of geekyness, I decided to start this FAQ

Q: Why do people want to make renders of LEGO models?

A: I suppose they want things to look like as close to reality as possible.

Q: Why do they want that? Why not just a simple screenshot?

A: I guess because they want their model shiny and nice (i.e. like in real life).

Q: So, how close to reality can we get then?

A: Not sure, that's why I started this topic

Q: But is it really interesting to get a render to look exactly like reality, i.e. with slight color differences, wheels that are randomly rotated, camera blur, dust speckles etc (i.e. that you introduce imperfections)?

A: Don't know. Maybe it's enough that it looks shiny and nice, like traditional renders.

Q: But you think there is a trend towards even more realistic renders?

A: I would guess so. You know - Moore's law and everything.

Q: So, what will the consequence be if the renders become so good that you can't even tell them apart from the real thing (i.e. a photograph)?

A: I don't know that either, that's also why I started the topic. But one immediate consequence would be how to judge MOC contests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: Why do people want to make renders of LEGO models?

A: I suppose they want things to look like as close to reality as possible.

I also want to add that some people are really good at making renders. Not only the model itself, but the whole thing; lightning, camera position etc. It doesn't neccesarily need to be realistic; some renders are just little pieces of "art". They're beatiful to look at, but instead of using (real life :grin: ) paint, they use a computer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to add that some people are really good at making renders. Not only the model itself, but the whole thing; lightning, camera position etc. It doesn't neccesarily need to be realistic; some renders are just little pieces of "art". They're beatiful to look at, but instead of using (real life :grin: ) paint, they use a computer

That is true

And to add to that, in industry, renders are often used to eliminate the need to take real product photos, which can be very expensive. For example, the entire production of images used in most product configurators are rendered, down to the stitches in the leather seats. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a query on this:

I've previously created a lot of Star Wars MOCs in LDD, and I'd love to share them on the forums here, but the presentation of them using LDDs native rendering capabilities is sorely lacking, and its really put me off posting anything so far. Is there a way to port the LDD files directly into PovRay (or any other rendering app for that matter)?

NB: I really really don't want to have to rebuild any of them in LDRAW or any other convoluted process if I can help it - I'm not exactly enjoying a wealth of spare time to be tinkering with something like that! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blip

Take a look at here. :wink:

Remember that the most of the software related to digital cad are listed in the Section Index.

One note: about your MOCs you should post them in the Star Wars section*, then you can report them here using the Eurobricks MOC LXF Index.

* except for those that uses interesting built techniques that could be shared and discussed here in the digital section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's a program called "LDD to POV-Ray", which (as the name suggests) exports LDD files to POV-ray. There's also a topic about it here (where you can also ask the author of the program questions, if you have any).

EDIT: it seems Calabar was a little bit quicker :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.