Shared publicly  - 
Not photorealistic yet, but computer graphics continues to progress...
Wayne Radinsky's profile photoLinas Vepstas's profile photoParadox Spaceman's profile photoKyle Animates's profile photo
why'd you say "not yet photorealistic"?  The cartoon characters & scientific animations, clearly not, but the movie action scenes look photorealistic to me .. !?
It didn't quite look completely real to me.
Your eyesight is better than mine :-)  In general, when I see the large sweeping-panorama scenes in movies, I have to remind myself that its a CG effect; that they did not find a location or build a set of that size.  Now, why do I think this? Perhaps I am subconsciously cued in to some jaggedness, some awkward, robotic movement, some failed smoke or fire or dust effect... so perhaps yes.  But I'm not trained enough to look at it and go, "ohh, did ya see that? That looked fakey!" 

On the other hand, I remember a certain SGI graphics demo from the early 1990's, a 3D flyby of some hills/low mountains.  Early texture mapping/shading stuff.  I remember thinking to myself "ah, those mountains aren't bad, but still look kinda fake, too bad..."   Then some months later, I piloted my rental car from Palo Alto to Reno, to do some weekend skiing, and there, lo and behold, were exactly those mountains!  Exactly like in the demo!  Colors, shading, everything!  It turns out the demo had been perfect; I had just never seen hills that quite looked like that before.
Add a comment...