No it isn't. It's the work of Olivo Barbieri who has a famous series of aerial photographs taken from helicopter with a tilt-shift lens, deliberately yielding the narrow depth-of-field look. It's not achieved with post.
a tilt shift lens uses a filter to give a DOP effect wish is caused by a simulated distortion of the internal optics..for an "artistic look" wish in terms...is fake. i dare anyone to do this with a normal good lens.
just so you know guys..i'm not pulling this stuff outa my ass..hehe..i got a 3 year college degree in professional photography and lighting..:)
I didn't get a degree in photography, but I own a tilt-shift lens
A tilt-shift lens doesn't use a "filter" to "simulate" anything. (Quick definition of its actual functioning:Tilt-Shift Lens Definition) A tilt-shift lens just moves the lens vertically in the housing, with an option to tilt it on axis... it's about as real a thing as you can get (?). It's not for an "artistic" look! Architects, especially, use it all the time for perspective correction, but there are a ton of uses for it, which you can find all over the web if you're interested. Here it's just used to differing effect. Obviously, you're not going to get extreme DOF of the Colosseum with a normal (35-50mm) lens (?!). I have no idea how taking a photo of a real place, with a real camera, with a real lens constitutes "fake". And tilt-shift lenses aren't exactly exotic. I mean, maybe infrared photography is exotic, but this is a standard tool. In any case, CG is fake, real is real. It's a real photo, with no post, and the depth-of-field is real. But that's part of why his images are on display at museums - because the resulting effect is so striking.
Mike..hehe...i had one of those lens as well...he's using it in an artistic fashion, not in it's original use. so there for, images don't look real. i mean because they are in a museum does'nt mean much. Some moron in new-york did a woman's dress with raw meet!...hehehe. it's all a mather of tast realy. but to say it's real..well, that's pushing it. i don't recall anyone been able to do that with their own eyes realy.
Not sure I understand the debate over this photo. Fiddling the depth of field in the photo (however it's done) made something real appear unreal. It's not much of a leap to say that the same effect, or deficiencies in the simulation of it, could be responsible for preventing something unreal from appearing real.
I was just responding to your comment, "The DOP [sic] is fake." I was just saying it wasn't a "fake" effect, i.e. done in post; it was a real effect. I also don't agree the images look fake, I think they look like miniatures. Real miniatures, not CG/fake miniatures, I mean. In any case, perhaps you mean fake=miniature. At which point, the whole thing devolves into semantics. In any case, the whole thing began with a discussion of how depth-of-field affects the perceived scale of an object, which I think is demonstrated perfectly in the Barbieri images. His photographs obtain a shallow depth-of-field due to his use of tilt-shift lenses, and the result is that huge objects look like miniatures.
It's not much of a leap to say that the same effect, or deficiencies in the simulation of it, could be responsible for preventing something unreal from appearing real.
This is exactly the point I originally made, referencing a Barbieri photo as an extreme example of where DOF can utterly change the perception of scale.
To do an all-aluminum (or even alu/resin) R2, join the R2-D2 Builders Club. But I should warn you it takes years to collect all the parts (runs aren't done constantly) and it's very expensive. A fully decked-out R2 with complete servos and motors can cost as much as a car. But then again, you end up with a real R2, which some people think is very, very, very cool.
To do an all-aluminum (or even alu/resin) A fully decked-out R2 with complete servos and motors can cost as much as a car. But then again, you end up with a real R2, which some people think is very, very, very cool.
_Mike
A car!:o
well it would be very,very cool....
I guess I will have to settle for the model when you share it.... J/k I am sure LFL wouldn't like that.
Looking at it now though, all the materials seem to be a touch too reflective, especially the dome. That is what's giving this away as being CG IMO. Well, that and the fact that the reflections in question aren't coming from anywhere in the scene.
Looking at it now though, all the materials seem to be a touch too reflective, especially the dome. That is what's giving this away as being CG IMO. Well, that and the fact that the reflections in question aren't coming from anywhere in the scene.
Maxwell can't "fake" reflections - the reflections are only coming from things in the scene.
The aluminum material for the dome is actually referencing an .ior file, meaning Maxwell is getting the material properties from a scientifically-derived spectral wavelength profile for aluminum, measured in a laboratory with special equipment, so its characteristics are physically accurate. Maxwell comes with a whole boatload of .ior files for tons of materials, as seen here in our .ior profiles browser:
This is obviously just the first few, but the advantage of using .ior materials is that they are physically accurate, and unobtainable by conventional methods. The drawback is that you can't alter the profiles - aluminum is aluminum. They also calculate a touch slower because their spectral qualities are orders of magnitude more complex. Again, another interesting example of how even when something is behaving as it would in real life, it can look fake to some eyes. I love that stuff...
Posts
Olivo Barbieri Article
_Mike
P.S. By the way, where's that stretching you were talking about?
just so you know guys..i'm not pulling this stuff outa my ass..hehe..i got a 3 year college degree in professional photography and lighting..:)
A tilt-shift lens doesn't use a "filter" to "simulate" anything. (Quick definition of its actual functioning:Tilt-Shift Lens Definition) A tilt-shift lens just moves the lens vertically in the housing, with an option to tilt it on axis... it's about as real a thing as you can get (?). It's not for an "artistic" look! Architects, especially, use it all the time for perspective correction, but there are a ton of uses for it, which you can find all over the web if you're interested. Here it's just used to differing effect. Obviously, you're not going to get extreme DOF of the Colosseum with a normal (35-50mm) lens (?!). I have no idea how taking a photo of a real place, with a real camera, with a real lens constitutes "fake". And tilt-shift lenses aren't exactly exotic. I mean, maybe infrared photography is exotic, but this is a standard tool. In any case, CG is fake, real is real. It's a real photo, with no post, and the depth-of-field is real. But that's part of why his images are on display at museums - because the resulting effect is so striking.
_Mike
P.S. You were saying about texture stretching?
_Mike
This is exactly the point I originally made, referencing a Barbieri photo as an extreme example of where DOF can utterly change the perception of scale.
_Mike
Okay, that's enough of that.
_Mike
_Mike
A car!:o
well it would be very,very cool....
I guess I will have to settle for the model when you share it.... J/k
I'd rather it get me a coke and fix my fridge!:D
_Mike
_Mike
"You gotta be shittin' me, right?"
R2-D2: I really have to take an oil bath!!!!
Great work.
Take care.
lets just say it rolled off the line right to that spot:)
*scratches head*
Ah oh well.
pmpn
Maxwell can't "fake" reflections - the reflections are only coming from things in the scene.
The aluminum material for the dome is actually referencing an .ior file, meaning Maxwell is getting the material properties from a scientifically-derived spectral wavelength profile for aluminum, measured in a laboratory with special equipment, so its characteristics are physically accurate. Maxwell comes with a whole boatload of .ior files for tons of materials, as seen here in our .ior profiles browser:
This is obviously just the first few, but the advantage of using .ior materials is that they are physically accurate, and unobtainable by conventional methods. The drawback is that you can't alter the profiles - aluminum is aluminum. They also calculate a touch slower because their spectral qualities are orders of magnitude more complex. Again, another interesting example of how even when something is behaving as it would in real life, it can look fake to some eyes. I love that stuff...
_Mike