[dd_]

In your mind, photorealism is engine-dependent and not user-dependent. If it is the engine that makes great 3d visuals, then why isn't every single image submitted to this forum great and photoreal?

i cant count the times i've said that about a couple of engines and i still stand by that. totally agree mate. having a really good hammer doesnt mean everyone will not bend the nail they hit.

and i say being anal (passionate about the work and details) and having good eyes makes a great visual/ artist

[tom]

I mean, I don't put the engine and user apart. But a user should have a good engine to produce a great 3D visual and there are several good engines around which leaves the rest to user. So, you give the credits to user prior to engine while I think the engine is prior to user in terms of photorealism. This is why today many newbies can create realistic stuff in their first attempts. They are not maybe masterpieces but still more real than the best artists' renders from years ago. We should all agree trying to render scanline without GI and many other stuff is not acceptable as something great anymore and no matter how good the artist is. Human factor will always remain as the key, however we should face with the fact that when we uninstall these modern engines and all new 3D tools we have and return to basic raytracing, it will not be possible to talk about greatness of a 3D visual.
IMO this is a great example:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=29782
...and without *radiosity* it wouldn't be a great 3D visual.

[Frances]

I mean, I don't put the engine and user apart. But a user should have a good engine to produce a great 3D visual and there are several good engines around which leaves the rest to user. So, you give the credits to user prior to engine while I think the engine is prior to user in terms of photorealism.

True, the advent of global illumination has advanced things on the photoreal front, although photorealism was certainly possible with other methods. Witness the cries of "That's cheating!" from the VFX community, many of whom have successfully integrated CG with film or photos for many years without using GI and without anyone knowing any better (absolute, undetectable seamlessness being the only measure of success in that line of work). But IMHO, it is strange that you place the importance of the engine ahead of the user. Software can only react to the input of the user. Even Maxwell cannot aim the camera for you or make the aesthetic or practical choices that the user puts into the creation of a great 3d visual.

[tom]

...make the aesthetic or practical choices that the user puts into the creation of a great 3d visual.

True, the user adds too much but, first the engine should be capable of rendering those choices properly. A great camera angle in a biased render with artifacts or incorrect color bleeding in the most aesthetic scene is out of season. This is why the users/artist still look for better solutions to visualize their imaginations. Otherwise a paper and a pencil would still be enough in terms of art. The question was "What makes a great 3D visual?", so the artist is always in search of better tools. I don't mean tools are above the artist, but they are the key elements helping artist to create the desired "great 3D" visual in the end. Without them, the art will still remain but the lack of quality in visualization, that's for sure.

[Hervé]

Thisis why I am always mazed by old painters like Rembrandt... I mean the tools and canvases and paints and chemicals they had were "so so"...

The perfect tool does not exist... (yet)... and IF one day it exist.. then we'll call ourselves AD..

[Bubbaloo]

Better and better tools (and the ability to utilize them) are what allowed the human race to become the dominant species. I wonder what the great artists of the past would think about 3d today? Or what they could do with it...

I agree with Tom, photorealism is the highest achievement to strive for in 3d visualization. That's just an opinion, though and opinions surely vary, hence art exists (and art critics).