Artefact Four

For my fourth artefact, I rendered an image from the 3D model I produced for the Client Project. This had to show an improvement on the last artefact so I made a high quality single frame render of my redesign of the cocktail bar, ‘Minus One’. This image shows a well lit view across the bar including a realistic raised seating area.

I put the image into a questionnaire of the same structure alongside three photographs. Participants were asked to pick out the computer-generated image and to give any reasons for their choice.

The results showed that out of the people who participated, a modest fifty five percent of them correctly identified photo D as the computer-generated image. Most participants gave very limited comments when explaining their decision. However, a lot of people noted that it was a hard decision to make or that they were torn between two particular images. These findings show that there is an improvement in standard from the image used in the previous artefact. A much larger group of people were fooled by this questionnaire, which shows that a fairly decent standard of reality can be created on an inferior machine. Even though the percentage is only just a majority, the results are encouraging.

Client Project - Final video..

the quality needs to be inproved..

Artefact Three

When I put together my third questionnaire I created a 3D model based on the flat that I live in. I felt it was important to experiment with a visualisation that I had created myself on a machine with a much lower specification than industry standard. This would enable me to judge the extent to which people can be fooled by CGI.

I decided to keep the same structure of questionnaire containing three images from stock photography websites and my own image. Participants were asked to pick one image out of the four options that they believed to be computer-generated.

The results showed that out of the people who participated, a very high seventy five percent of them correctly chose photo B as the computer-generated image. The main reasons given for choosing this image were unrealistic lighting and the image having a “video game look”. This suggests that the image I created is not necessarily up to standard, in terms of realism. Only a quarter of participants were fooled into picking A, C or D, suggesting that the image used in the questionnaire needs to be improved. In order to achieve the same effect as the images of Alex Roman, CGI has to include a realistic lighting system. This highlights the gap that there can be between the standards of two different computer-generated images. By reworking and improving work that has been done in the past should enable me to create a very realistic image.

Artefact Two Feedback

My second artefact has given me results which are even more supportive of my research conclusion.

I decided to once again produce a questionnaire containing four images. Again, three of these were photographs, and the other was a computer-generated image by Alex Roman. Participants were asked to pick one image out of the four that they believed to be computer-generated and to give any reasons for their choice.

Results showed that out of the people who participated, a very low twenty percent of them correctly chose photo A as the computer-generated image. The main reasons given for choosing photo A were that the lighting and focus were not accurate, as well as some of the photo being blurred. In the image, Alex Roman has tried to give the illusion of filmed reality by adjusting the focus using depth of field. Eighty percent of participants were fooled into picking B, C or D, suggesting that computer-generated imagery can convince people by showing techniques used in photography. People who picked the wrong image gave reasons such as the textures not looking real and the images looking "cut-out". From this, it shows that Roman's image effectively mimics reality to fool the majority of people.

Client Project Update - Short Clips

Artefact One Feedback

My first artefact returned results which supported the conclusion of my research document.

I produced a questionnaire containing four images, from which the participants had to choose from. Three of these were photographs, and the other was a computer-generated image by Alex Roman. Participants were asked to pick one image out of the four that they believed to be computer-generated and to give any reasons for their choice.

Results showed that out of the people who participated, only thirty percent of them correctly chose photo D as the computer-generated image. The main reason given for choosing photo D was that there was some repetition used within the bookshelf. This is only really obvious when you take the time to look closely at the image. However, the fact that seventy percent of participants were fooled into picking A, B or C, suggests that computer-generated imagery can mimic realism very well. People who picked the wrong image gave reasons such as lack of detail and unrealistic light levels. From this, it is obvious to see that Alex Roman's image must have very accurate lighting and show a high level of detail.

Client Project Update - Single Frame Renders

Client Project Update

The modelling of Minus One is going surprisingly smoothly, the majority of the different elements have been completed. I am almost ready to put everything together and play around with materials and lighting systems. Images to follow shortly...

Studio AKA

Definitely worth a look...
http://www.studioaka.co.uk

They are the animation company that produced the Lloyds TSB adverts with the people with the pointy noses :)

Animation - Update

Quick render of my character that will star in my 'Cup of Tea' animation. I took this just before i painted the skin in Photoshop..
.

Visualisation - Update

just a couple of quick renders from my airport model, not finished yet but its getting there :)

Fallout 3

over my christmas/new year break i have downloaded a version of Fallout 3 for my mac, the modelling looks very well done. i havent spent much time playing yet, but i am looking forward to seeing what the animation is like.

Visualisation

Heres an update on my rollercoaster project, bit late because of my printscreen problem...

I have made a crater-style landscape around the roller coaster itself. The track will wind in and out of run-down buildings in an abandoned village...

At the centre of the village will be the well that i made...

And here are a couple of images of views from inside the village. I still have more buildings and other structures to put in, but it gives you an idea...

Games

soo, got my card game pretty much done :) just have to write up my rules and start getting feedback from my housemates.

heres a sample of what my cards actually look like...

print screens???

how many more problems am i going to have???

ok, so im having trouble with doing print screens.

i have a macbook pro and i have split the hard drive so i can run windows on it as well. however, there is no print screen button on a mac keyboard and the combination used on a mac to print screen will not work on windows....

help.

Visualisation

just a quick post, here are some images i rendered today...

the first is just with natural daylight...


the second is with another small corner light added...

in the third i have added lights to the bulbs in the ceiling lamps...

and the fourth is the same but from a different view...

Animation

so i am getting on well with the animation side of the course.

ive been enjoying building and rigging a robot and feel pretty confident in doing it.

i have been playing around with rendering and lighting as well when modelling my robot, and i will upload screen shots later.

Soooo...

after 2 months f trying to cope with no internet and a stolen laptop, amongst other things..

i can update my blog :)

easter blog entries...

to be put online shortly...

Identities - Avatar 3D Max

still a work in progress, but it is coming together. i need to play around with the body shape a bit more and add detail to the head. i am looking forward to adding the graphics though...