• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CG Girl - Real or CG?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
possibly NSFW

contains non-sexual rendered nudity. click at your own risk.

if you move up the directory structure you will get this link
http://up.2chan.net/x/futaba.htm

from that page...you can tell the site is about CG rendered stuff.

if you click next page a couple times.. you get here
http://up.2chan.net/x/2.htm

5th picture down is the girl you have linked. i cant read japanese so i dont know whta it is for sure.

someone help?
 
Originally posted by: cerebusPu
if you move up the directory structure you will get this link
http://up.2chan.net/x/futaba.htm

from that page...you can tell the site is about CG rendered stuff.

if you click next page a couple times.. you get here
http://up.2chan.net/x/2.htm

5th picture down is the girl you have linked. i cant read japanese so i dont know whta it is for sure.

someone help?
I don't know what to say. The Fish isn't much good, all it returns is
3DCG conversion of this child we ask.
That 2.
And the rest are all user comments.
 
Originally posted by: dc
Originally posted by: cerebusPu
if you move up the directory structure you will get this link
http://up.2chan.net/x/futaba.htm

from that page...you can tell the site is about CG rendered stuff.

if you click next page a couple times.. you get here
http://up.2chan.net/x/2.htm

5th picture down is the girl you have linked. i cant read japanese so i dont know whta it is for sure.

someone help?

should've given a NSFW warning heh

same warning then 🙂 http://www.cgchannel.com/news/viewfeature.jsp?newsid=1793&pageid=0
 
There is a shadow across the forehead that doesn't belong there. So it could be CG, unless its a real pic and the shadow was photoshopped.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is, if they paid so much attention to detail on all the other stuff, why not make the shadow right on the forehead? That's one of the simpler things to do in CG as it is automatically calculated.

Bottom line, IMHO, this is a real pic photoshopped to make it look CG.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
If she's not real, then CG will soon make actually women obsolete. 😛

Got a hell of a wait for that; computer-generated sense of touch is a long way off. Oh, how I envy the nerds of the future 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: PingSpike
If she's not real, then CG will soon make actually women obsolete. 😛

Got a hell of a wait for that; computer-generated sense of touch is a long way off. Oh, how I envy the nerds of the future 🙁

...well, it would make the women of porn obsolete.
 
Originally posted by: element
There is a shadow across the forehead that doesn't belong there. So it could be CG, unless its a real pic and the shadow was photoshopped.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is, if they paid so much attention to detail on all the other stuff, why not make the shadow right on the forehead? That's one of the simpler things to do in CG as it is automatically calculated.

Bottom line, IMHO, this is a real pic photoshopped to make it look CG.

(Maybe you missed the fact that she has hair)
 
I voted that it is real, and not CG. However, it could go either way.

the grain in the picture, if it was done on film and then drum scanned, it inconsistent. Therefore, i feel that some parts of the picture were touched up in photoshop. If the picture was digital, there should have been less grain visible on the left shoulder skin; there's plenty of light in that photo to use a lower iso on digital camera.

the picture seems to been have taken at high noon, or when the light outside was very close to 6500K; you can tell this by the color of the light emmiting from her right side (left side fo photo). some of this light is reflecting off her left side of hair (the right side of the photo).

the yellower light on the right side of the photo may have just been some incandescent studio lights to reduce shadows from the light from the window. you can even see some of this light on what appears to be a door/wall in the background.

A soft-box flash may have been used to fill flash her; you can tell this by the way the higher kelvin light of a fill flash is reflecting off her black dress. you can even see the reflection of the soft box or fill flash in her eyes. the reflection may be the studio lights however, judging from the angle that they are at.

on second thought, i think the photo may be a digital camera shot, not film there is chromatic abbiration on the left side of the photo, near the outline of her black dress. I have not seen many good film SLRs that show that much chromatic abbiration, though it has much more to do with lense quality.

face complexion looks normal to that of most fair-skinned asians that i've seen. looks korean to me.

**edit: also you can see a bobby pin in her hair, very faintly at that, i doubt a CG artist would detail it that faintly or at all.
 
It's strange how on a forum composed of people who should know a bit about current technology, everyone thinks that CG can't get close to realism, especially in stills.
 
Originally posted by: mooojojojo
It's strange how on a forum composed of people who should know a bit about current technology, everyone thinks that CG can't get close to realism, especially in stills.
I don't think that's the case. I think the sentiment is just that when it comes to human beings (and not inanimate objects), there are certain nuances that still set apart the real thing from a computer generated still.
 
Originally posted by: element
There is a shadow across the forehead that doesn't belong there. So it could be CG, unless its a real pic and the shadow was photoshopped.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is, if they paid so much attention to detail on all the other stuff, why not make the shadow right on the forehead? That's one of the simpler things to do in CG as it is automatically calculated.

Bottom line, IMHO, this is a real pic photoshopped to make it look CG.

Or a just as likely case. There was a real photograph manipulated and used as a texture for a still CG image.
 
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: mooojojojo
It's strange how on a forum composed of people who should know a bit about current technology, everyone thinks that CG can't get close to realism, especially in stills.
I don't think that's the case. I think the sentiment is just that when it comes to human beings (and not inanimate objects), there are certain nuances that still set apart the real thing from a computer generated still.

Its VERY easy for CG to USE and MANIPULATE photographs for textures.
 
Or a just as likely case. There was a real photograph manipulated and used as a texture for a still CG image.
from looking at what a CG guy from work who does that stuff it looks like thats what has happend here. There are to many "perfections" that are ment to look as "imprefections"...the roundness of the tip of the nose, the armpit scrunch, the way her breasts are shiney but other parts are smooth, it all adds to that effect that maybe it is maybe it ins't. I've scene a few created like this and its kinda like your putting skin on a frame so really on top its "real" but underneath its fake. I vote for CG, i think someone took a good shot of this girl and just wrapped the skin around a wire frame and thus got a face/bust from it..
 
Originally posted by: Slacker
Originally posted by: jntdesign
i think it's half and half
you mean cg/real life or male/female or both?

lol
cg/real

i'd be upset if it was a heshe/himer/pat - since when i first seen it i thought 'yeah, i'd hit it'
 
Back
Top