I don’t ‘totally’ disagree with you. So far it’s absolutely true that if you really pay attention you can likely tell. I just think that’s a matter of the $$$ and people rather than the tech.
But there are cases IMO they pull it off. The black dude in the commercial was a close up. BUT it was a fairly fast cut so no time to linger on it and study the details in context.
The distance thing is purely a texture issue. The animation/movement is probably the big one here. Most animators are pretty good but there is a lot of detail in movement that contributes to actual realism. And thats a time/money thing.
Just as a side note, I did 3D as a hobby back in the Amiga/Video toaster days as a hobby. When Commodore tanked, it was too expensive for me on the PC and SGI systems were fantasyland.
Every time I play modded Skyrim I marvel at 60 FPS at HDMI rez when I remember a 320x200 pixel mirrorball/checkerboard was an all night render for a single frame.
We have come far ;)
You're not kidding. I haven't done any 3-d stuff, mainly because I have zero artistic ability. Unlike my daughter, who actually draws playing cards for a living. (She obviously didn't get that from me)
On the other hand, I remember doing deep zooms with Fractint on a 33Mhz 386 that would take literally a week or more to render. (i.e., I couldn't use my computer for the week that it took to draw the screen.
Today, the same zoom level is practically real-time given improvements in pipelining, floating point processers, and the speed of the multi-core CPUs in general.
Astounding. Couple that with the multi-GB of RAM, and there really is no comparison. My desktop has 18GB of ram, whereas that lowly 386 had 1MB originally, though I eventually upgraded to 4MB, and used 2MB for a ram disk most of the time.
AmP