<ul>
<li>The hair seems to have sampling noise or aliasing in it. This <em>might</em> be poor jpeg compression but it does not look like it.</li>
<li>I've never seen hair part that way (could just be me).</li>
<li>The neck looks a little too regular (I'm no modeler though).</li>
<li>The skin's subsurface scattering falls a bit short. Perhaps it's not that but there is something slightly off about the skin.</li>
<li>The shirt has a slight plastic feel to it.</li>
</ul>

<p>Most of this is entirely subjective of course. I think it's fairly good but falls short of the state of the art in many areas.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-29T13:34:06.867Z
2017-05-29T13:34:06.867Z
Olivier
<p>I suppose you'd like to hear the first impression, so to say.
So here are most notable features that uncover the 'synthetic' nature of the image (for my eye).</p>

<ul>
<li>Too smooth textures on the shirt. In real world 
every textile is imperfect, regardless how smooth it is and how good the lights are set up.
There is always visible 'grain' and imperfection of textures, but i suppose it is next to impossible
to model due to complexity of real shadow plays. 
So on this image the shirt has most noticable "plastic" look.
Face is a bit too smooth textured, but this could be percieved as, say too much cosmetics. So
in general the head looks quite real.</li>
<li>Shadows, contrast. Every detail of real objects has very different contrast zones of shadows. 
Here again on the shirt around the neck and especially near the stud:  there is simply too little
contrast diversity or too simple shadows, as if the objects are flat. </li>
<li>Focus of the camera. It is rarely seen on real fotos that all parts of the portrait have equally sharp focus</li>
</ul>

<p>And something is wrong with her ear, no? but it is hard to say what is it exactly. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-29T21:22:31.583Z
2017-05-29T21:42:20.827Z
2017-05-29T21:42:20.827Z
Mikhail V
<p>Look at this image:<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jVP0a.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jVP0a.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>This is CG, Saya, a project meant to make as real CG as possible to the point of becoming indistinguishable from reality. I would say that it is pretty believable. But, it still doesn't seem real enough, something's missing. And I don't know what it is. And it drives me nuts. </p>

<p>I am not saying that CG has to do reality, I am personaly fond of stylization, but I really want to know why we can't get a 3d image just right yet.</p>

<p>Is it the light? The clothing? The lines above the lip, too defined?</p>

<p>Any insights would be appreciated.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-28T18:10:52.757Z
CG has already passed the uncanny valley, as can be shown by the rising ubiquity of completely digital doubles in Hollywood blockbusters of recent years. I would imagine giving critique of a particular artwork is somewhat out of the scope of this website, but for me it's mostly the lack of detail on the clothes and the skin shader. The hair is also a bit off but hard to say exactly how.
Rotem
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-28T20:53:00.597Z
Sometimes people geet hooked on knowing that it is cg. They then say they can spot CG. However when you then give them a mixture of images which are real and which are CG they suddenly can not spot the difference.
joojaa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-28T21:03:42.723Z
I would say for things to improve, the tie and shirt don't quite look right but it would take a lot of observation and the intent to find rendering issues to observe those things. In terms of the interaction of light, it has been nailed but what will need to happen next (for CG in general) will be an accurate simulation of smoke and other fluids to perfect CGI in most scenarios. This also brings up the question for me of where rendering goes next? Other than speeding up renders what can be done to improve? Is there a dead end soon approaching?
Arjan Singh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-29T12:28:13.727Z
See also [this very similar question](https://computergraphics.stackexchange.com/questions/2556/what-physical-properties-are-lacking-to-keep-this-3d-scene-from-looking-like-a). I'm not closing this as a duplicate because I'm treating it as a review of the image for realism, rather than a general question about the state of the art. I've edited the title to reflect this.
trichoplax is on Codidact now
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-29T13:44:22.840Z
@trichoplax much appreciated
Bagnette
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-30T05:01:19.737Z
The dead eyes, for me.
BadSnowflake
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-30T11:38:27.237Z
Looks to clean. Doesn't suffer the artefacts which many cameras/lenses create. E.g. grain. Lighting also looks too perfectly distributed.
Syntac_
<rendering><texture><3d><lighting>
What is missing in this image that stops it from looking like a photograph?
Bagnette
# What is missing in this image that stops it from looking like a photograph?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-28)

Look at this image:[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/jVP0a.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/jVP0a.jpg)

This is CG, Saya, a project meant to make as real CG as possible to the point of becoming indistinguishable from reality. I would say that it is pretty believable. But, it still doesn't seem real enough, something's missing. And I don't know what it is. And it drives me nuts.

I am not saying that CG has to do reality, I am personaly fond of stylization, but I really want to know why we can't get a 3d image just right yet.

Is it the light? The clothing? The lines above the lip, too defined?

Any insights would be appreciated.

**Tags:** rendering, texture, 3d, lighting

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: CG has already passed the uncanny valley, as can be shown by the rising ubiquity of completely digital doubles in Hollywood blockbusters of recent years. I would imagine giving critique of a particular artwork is somewhat out of the scope of this website, but for me it's mostly the lack of detail on the clothes and the skin shader. The hair is also a bit off but hard to say exactly how.  
> **username_2**: Sometimes people geet hooked on knowing that it is cg. They then say they can spot CG. However when you then give them a mixture of images which are real and which are CG they suddenly can not spot the difference.  
> **username_3**: I would say for things to improve, the tie and shirt don't quite look right but it would take a lot of observation and the intent to find rendering issues to observe those things. In terms of the interaction of light, it has been nailed but what will need to happen next (for CG in general) will be an accurate simulation of smoke and other fluids to perfect CGI in most scenarios. This also brings up the question for me of where rendering goes next? Other than speeding up renders what can be done to improve? Is there a dead end soon approaching?  
> **username_4**: See also [this very similar question](https://computergraphics.stackexchange.com/questions/2556/what-physical-properties-are-lacking-to-keep-this-3d-scene-from-looking-like-a). I'm not closing this as a duplicate because I'm treating it as a review of the image for realism, rather than a general question about the state of the art. I've edited the title to reflect this.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 much appreciated  
> **username_5**: The dead eyes, for me.  
> **username_6**: Looks to clean. Doesn't suffer the artefacts which many cameras/lenses create. E.g. grain. Lighting also looks too perfectly distributed.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2017-05-29. Score: 6

* The hair seems to have sampling noise or aliasing in it. This *might* be poor jpeg compression but it does not look like it.
* I've never seen hair part that way (could just be me).
* The neck looks a little too regular (I'm no modeler though).
* The skin's subsurface scattering falls a bit short. Perhaps it's not that but there is something slightly off about the skin.
* The shirt has a slight plastic feel to it.

Most of this is entirely subjective of course. I think it's fairly good but falls short of the state of the art in many areas.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2017-05-29. Score: 2

I suppose you'd like to hear the first impression, so to say.
So here are most notable features that uncover the 'synthetic' nature of the image (for my eye).

* Too smooth textures on the shirt. In real world
  every textile is imperfect, regardless how smooth it is and how good the lights are set up.
  There is always visible 'grain' and imperfection of textures, but i suppose it is next to impossible
  to model due to complexity of real shadow plays.
  So on this image the shirt has most noticable "plastic" look.
  Face is a bit too smooth textured, but this could be percieved as, say too much cosmetics. So
  in general the head looks quite real.
* Shadows, contrast. Every detail of real objects has very different contrast zones of shadows.
  Here again on the shirt around the neck and especially near the stud: there is simply too little
  contrast diversity or too simple shadows, as if the objects are flat.
* Focus of the camera. It is rarely seen on real fotos that all parts of the portrait have equally sharp focus

And something is wrong with her ear, no? but it is hard to say what is it exactly.


---

