Is this pic real or computer-generated?

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: mchammer187

it looks a pic that has used digital camera with digital zoom imo (ie non optical zoom)

Nah, I have NEVER used digital zoom. The second I buy a new camera, I turn off digital zoom, if it is even on by default.

i wasnt talking about the pic in the OP's post i was talking about the one the someone posted before the quoted post should be within 5-6 posts

 

[BrokenVisage]

Real or computer-generated?

I'm going to say real, someone obviously bred a kitten with a live loaf of bread.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

When looking at the resized one, I was convinced that it was CG. The original, however, shows none of the flaws I saw in the resized pic.

Looking at the resized pic, I think that with a lot of time and dedication, you could make a CG model that was virtually indistinguishable from that picture. If an aspiring modeler/artist were to have the dedication, I could see that scene being reproduced as part of a resume. I do not believe, however, that you could do the same thing to reproduce the original size picture.

BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
When looking at the resized one, I was convinced that it was CG. The original, however, shows none of the flaws I saw in the resized pic.

Looking at the resized pic, I think that with a lot of time and dedication, you could make a CG model that was virtually indistinguishable from that picture. If an aspiring modeler/artist were to have the dedication, I could see that scene being reproduced as part of a resume. I do not believe, however, that you could do the same thing to reproduce the original size picture.

BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

he's using irfanview, and it's a highly recommended piece of software on these forums. these aren't intended to be viewed as "professional photos" but were merely placed on bbzzdd.com as a temporary spot for storage.

if someone wants to get shot down with his CG skills, he'd feature such a picture on his resume. someone with dedication should look at better subjects.

as previously mentioned, my husband is a transit enthusiast and photographs buses and trains which he features on his gallery. he likes to feature many of those photographs, whether they are perfectly clear or a bit pixelated (but display subjects that would not otherwise be showcased), and there are over 10,000 photos. if you dig into the albums, you'd find the original and possibly other similar ones.

 

[PatboyX]

if that pic was fake, id expect my video games and movies to look awesome.

 

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

I probably used an older version of IrfanView. I doubt that such problems would come up if I resized it again using the current version of IrfanView. In fact, I think I'll do that and post it. Gimme a bit...

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: bluemax
Oh yeah...... it's also not hard to throw a picture onto the camera's memory stick then pull it back out with the camera's software, giving it the camera info you smarty-pants insist makes it real.

You my friend, are retarded

fake fake fake.... the pic looks good but it visually feels dead! the ph # is valid and I have never in my life seen such a clean road / street. Even a freshly paved road doesn't appear as that one. and i jujst read through the thread after typing this to discover it's a fake. the advertising is there though...

You are too

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: tami
if someone wants to get shot down with his CG skills, he'd feature such a picture on his resume. someone with dedication should look at better subjects.

I disagree. While a more interesting shot might be more "flashy", the attention to detail would certainly show skill. The random junk under the bushes, hairline cracks in the paint, and all the other reasons that were cited for the picture being real is precisely the reason why it would be such a good fake. Furthermore, some of the elements of the picture represent relatively difficult things to reproduce accurately in CGI (the trees, the reflections, etc).

I dunno... I'm not an expert by any means, but I would find a fake of this caliber to be very impressive. As part of a portfolio, I think it could show that the artist not only knows the "ins and outs" of the more flashy parts of the art, but also can concentrate on the miniscule details that seperate real images from computer generated ones.

But, like I said... I'm not an artist, I'm not even remotely in the field. My comments should be taken with the appropriate handful of salt.

 

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

I probably used an older version of IrfanView. I doubt that such problems would come up if I resized it again using the current version of IrfanView. In fact, I think I'll do that and post it. Gimme a bit...

Ok, I resized the full-size pic with IrfanView 3.95 (reduced to 40%, at 80% JPEG quality).

IMG_0409_resized.jpg

I don't really see a difference between them. So what are the flaws? And does anyone want to try using their favorite resizing program to see if they can achieve better results?

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

I probably used an older version of IrfanView. I doubt that such problems would come up if I resized it again using the current version of IrfanView. In fact, I think I'll do that and post it. Gimme a bit...

Ok, I resized the full-size pic with IrfanView 3.95 (reduced to 40%, at 80% JPEG quality).

IMG_0409_resized.jpg

I don't really see a difference between them. So what are the flaws? And does anyone want to try using their favorite resizing program to see if they can achieve better results?

The flaw is the intelligence of the people who say it's fake...

 

[Need4Speed]

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I say computer generated. My basis being that I think the coloring throughout the picture is a little too uniform and "perfect." I would say especially so on the face of the building, the fire hydrant, and the road.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Need4Speed

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I say computer generated. My basis being that I think the coloring throughout the picture is a little too uniform and "perfect." I would say especially so on the face of the building, the fire hydrant, and the road.

RTFT

(READ THE ******' THREAD)

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
BTW, BMdoobieW, whatever you are using to resize those pics sucks. It's really making your pictures look like they are CG

I probably used an older version of IrfanView. I doubt that such problems would come up if I resized it again using the current version of IrfanView. In fact, I think I'll do that and post it. Gimme a bit...

Ok, I resized the full-size pic with IrfanView 3.95 (reduced to 40%, at 80% JPEG quality).

IMG_0409_resized.jpg

I don't really see a difference between them. So what are the flaws? And does anyone want to try using their favorite resizing program to see if they can achieve better results?

Yea, I don't see an appreciable difference between the two.

The major flaw I see is the sharpness of the image. Perhaps a very slight blur or average would take care of it (at the sacrifice of overall clarity). If it were me, I probably would just leave it alone.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: Need4Speed

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I say computer generated. My basis being that I think the coloring throughout the picture is a little too uniform and "perfect." I would say especially so on the face of the building, the fire hydrant, and the road.

RTFT

(READ THE ******' THREAD)

LMAO

 

[tami]

i think this thread needs to be locked before it reveals more ATOT idiots.

 

[oddyager]

Okay, let's stop kidding ourselves. The author of those images came here and told you all that they are real. Why are we wasting bandwith in trying to convince the AUTHOR otherwise?

 

[Monkeyshack]

the reflection of the stop sign on the bus comes from nowhere on this pic: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/bmdoobiew/IMG_0412.JPG

FAKE~!

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Monkeyshack
the reflection of the stop sign on the bus comes from nowhere on this pic: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/bmdoobiew/IMG_0412.JPG

FAKE~!

QFS.

where S = stupidity.

i don't think people are trying to convince me or my husband, oddyager. they are just too dumb to read the entire thread or at least skim for the answer.