Hyper realistic product renders?

[aristocratic3d]

Hello, CG Artists,
We are aiming for hyper-realism with these products. How do you handle these types of projects? We have our own way of handling it. I am looking to see if we have been doing it right.

The first 3D artist who works on an item always misses something. We have to do teamwork or give in a couple more eyes to look for any mistakes made by the first guy. I can still notice some minor differences here in the image above. 

I wonder whether you achieve 100% accuracy for these types of projects. Is it something expected? Given that there is no drawing available or you don't have access to the physical sample.

Please let me know if I have posted it in the wrong section.

Thanks in advance for the advice.
Abdullah

[Scott Schroeder]

For hyper real shots such as you posted, it's about 25% the model detail and 75% mastering the materials. Having a really good studio lighting setup is also beneficial to help get the best detail out of the model and materials. Taking this model into something like Quixel Mixer or Substance Painter may help get those refined materials as well. With where real time engines are these days, in my humble opinion all product shots should be using Unreal or something like that. You just can't beat their quality combined with instant feedback in lighting and materials.

Ultimately, it comes down to the need for 100% accuracy. In the image you posted, with your rendering I can tell how that doorknob will look. If I saw that in a catalog or online, it's enough for me to know if I'd purchase it or not. As CG artists, we want to get every teeny-tiny detail in our models, but is it ultimately necessary?

[aristocratic3d]

6 hours ago, Scott Schroeder said:

As CG artists, we want to get every teeny-tiny detail in our models, but is it ultimately necessary?

Scott, That is my concern. Is it ultimately necessary? Do you do it to that level? Is it a general practice in the industry to get to that level? 

[Scott Schroeder]

Oh heck no, I don't do it to that level. I wish I could, but since I work in-studio at an architecture firm we have very narrow deadlines to meet.

Certain architectural visualization studios do model at that level, but that's also built into their scope and fee, but the quality you end up getting truly demands that overall higher fee and longer delivery time. There is only a very small portion of studios that can pull that off.

I can't say for the entire industry, but we usually are at 50-75% detail on our standard visualizations. You want enough detail that the space feels believable, but not going so far overboard that you can't make a profit and/or deliver on time without excessive overtime. We are trying to sell the space, not the furniture in the space. If I was doing work for a furniture designer, then I'd say I'd be closer to 90-100% detail because you are selling that piece of furniture.

[aristocratic3d]

Thanks for your input scott. That helps. In this case the client is selling the door knobs obviously. I will see if I can get a hold of physical samples from the client. 

[Francisco Penaloza]

As I mentioned in other similar post, I think there is a obsession or miss use of the word 'photo realism'. My major is Industrial design, I worked long time ago, when we did everything by hand and later some computer generated images, yes before we call them CG LOL. We tried our best to our capabilities and everybody every client got it, nobody said, 'hey there is not correct AO in that pencil drawing' our images were printed in catologs and sometimes showcase on TV..... good times.

Many years later, today we have Ai doing Monalisas, and we all got spoiled. As mentioned by Scott there are a few studios or artist that do 'hyper real images' but believe me that's not the standard, those are very specific cases. And what for us look hyper real is not actually reality, it is just exagerations to make it look 'real'  because, not even reality is real anymore, product Photography is not 100% real, I have worked with Architectural Photographers for years and they all 'cheat' something, I have worked with Product Photography, I have been lucky enough to meet this guy who does very popular brands photography and he also 'cheat'. Those nice burgers, you'll never eat one that look like the photo, those Iphones, never shine that much

Because Regular Human being, don't want reality, they want the best looking of the thing they like or they want.

So creating a nice, explanative image, is good, it is OK, is enough. I am no pushing for mediocrity, but just have a better understanding of the media.

As Scott mentioned, if you really want to make it look like the real thing, you need to invest way more time, and for you that means your product image should be more expensive. If the client is OK paying for it, then everyone happy, but if you are doing it on a tight budget, then you'll lose.

There are interviews about how IKEA produces their renderings. they control all fabrics and materials scanning. Modeling is extreme detailed, and lighting is a replication of a real Photo studio, working with exacts number, calibrated everything. But at the end most of those images will be seen on a very glossy phone screen with crappy environment lighting. At the end is more work for the artist it self than the client really being picky. There was a good post about how much work the CG studios did for the first transformer movie, how many bolts and metal parts with detailed scratched and paint chips that they all got invisible with the motion blur and shaking camera effect. that was a lot of hours and money spend for nothing else than bragging rights.

In your case, if you want/need more details, you need to make your material more complex and as mentioned by Scott change your workflow to add advanced texturing tools such Substance designer, painter or Z Bruch. Also you lighting has to be setup as a real photo studio, in your image compared to the photo, you can see the difference in reflections and depth in shadows.  Again you can archive very good result and even confuse the trained eye, but it will require time and effort that is up to you to decide how far is worth it to go.

Please don't work for free just because.

My two cents, not adjusted by inflation.

[aristocratic3d]

11 hours ago, Francisco Penaloza said:

As I mentioned in other similar post, I think there is a obsession or miss use of the word 'photo realism'. My major is Industrial design, I worked long time ago, when we did everything by hand and later some computer generated images, yes before we call them CG LOL. We tried our best to our capabilities and everybody every client got it, nobody said, 'hey there is not correct AO in that pencil drawing' our images were printed in catologs and sometimes showcase on TV..... good times.

Many years later, today we have Ai doing Monalisas, and we all got spoiled. As mentioned by Scott there are a few studios or artist that do 'hyper real images' but believe me that's not the standard, those are very specific cases. And what for us look hyper real is not actually reality, it is just exagerations to make it look 'real'  because, not even reality is real anymore, product Photography is not 100% real, I have worked with Architectural Photographers for years and they all 'cheat' something, I have worked with Product Photography, I have been lucky enough to meet this guy who does very popular brands photography and he also 'cheat'. Those nice burgers, you'll never eat one that look like the photo, those Iphones, never shine that much

Because Regular Human being, don't want reality, they want the best looking of the thing they like or they want.

So creating a nice, explanative image, is good, it is OK, is enough. I am no pushing for mediocrity, but just have a better understanding of the media.

As Scott mentioned, if you really want to make it look like the real thing, you need to invest way more time, and for you that means your product image should be more expensive. If the client is OK paying for it, then everyone happy, but if you are doing it on a tight budget, then you'll lose.

There are interviews about how IKEA produces their renderings. they control all fabrics and materials scanning. Modeling is extreme detailed, and lighting is a replication of a real Photo studio, working with exacts number, calibrated everything. But at the end most of those images will be seen on a very glossy phone screen with crappy environment lighting. At the end is more work for the artist it self than the client really being picky. There was a good post about how much work the CG studios did for the first transformer movie, how many bolts and metal parts with detailed scratched and paint chips that they all got invisible with the motion blur and shaking camera effect. that was a lot of hours and money spend for nothing else than bragging rights.

In your case, if you want/need more details, you need to make your material more complex and as mentioned by Scott change your workflow to add advanced texturing tools such Substance designer, painter or Z Bruch. Also you lighting has to be setup as a real photo studio, in your image compared to the photo, you can see the difference in reflections and depth in shadows.  Again you can archive very good result and even confuse the trained eye, but it will require time and effort that is up to you to decide how far is worth it to go.

Please don't work for free just because.

My two cents, not adjusted by inflation.

Work is not being done for free of course. It is a 20 artists strong studio here. I just was wondering how others do it. I know that for the purpose of interior rendering you don't need as much detail and accuracy for the furniture items. I am talking about product visualizations here. I have attached two renderings. You can see the amount of work done there. But you have to do what you have to do. This is the product that they are selling and something close is not enough. It has to look exactly like the original product. 

So for us, we go through multiple rounds of revisions before we send these to clients. As we found out that the clients in most cases do not have the critical eyes to pick up the errors. I am not sure if this is the best way to do it. Probably I need to hear from the birds of same feather who are hovering over the same region of work?

Scott and Francisco, Thanks for your detailed feedback. I wish I were in the same area to treat you with a dinner.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Yea, hang out with other Viz artist is always fun, since Covid that's what I miss the most for sure.

You said that "So for us, we go through multiple rounds of revisions before we send these to clients. As we found out that the clients in most cases do not have the critical eyes to pick up the errors. I am not sure if this is the best way to do it." If it works for you and your client are happy with it, why it won't be the right way to do it?

Other studio will tell you what they do, but that doesn't mean their way is the right or the only way, it is just what works for them.

As I mentioned earlier, Big VFX studio many times say that they shoot their self on the foot and lose money when they obsess about creating Hyper real scenes or objects. There was a big movement and self critics about their business, because most of them were artist pursuing the very best, but that really hurt their business.

Just because it look exactly like a photo doesn't means that is the only way to  do it. Again I am not advocating for mediocrity, actually I find myself always pushing more that I was asked for, but there is a fine line to be efficient. 

In your case I don't dough your modeling is correct, your lighting is fine too, if you want it to look just like the real thing actually you need to introduce 'mistakes' in your models, anything that is hand made is not perfect, anything that is machine produced, has marks of the machine process, like micro scratches, stretch of bending or burning, and while photographing the lighting and environment will reflect on the object.

These last renders looks great, but if you look at product Photography studios you'll see there are dark areas in the environment that are left in purpose to create contrast and more interesting shadows and reflections. If anything in your portfolio I would work first on your lighting setup, it seem too even. Then I would introduce scratches and shapes distortion. that will make the object extra believable. If that's what you are looking for.

Just the same that looking to actual objects photos I would also recommend to maybe visit some factories that make those products or similar products so you can see how things are made and how that process affect the look on the final product, I prepared this image with comments that I can spot from my Industrial design eye.

 

 

[aristocratic3d]

And the color is a bit off too.

I thought I should show you the rendering that is sent to the client (Attached). I have left the colored textured inner part for client review. If they ask for it I will get this geometry into substance painter. The fact that they sometimes like a bit of perfection as well. ha ha. Thanks Francisco for your valuable input.

[aristocratic3d]

Here is how it is looking after sharpening.

[heni30]

The handle disk cover sheen makes it look like lacquer/ highly reflective plastic. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by heni30
improve