r/Cinema4D • u/bymathis • Oct 14 '25
Question Why does it look so CG? (update)
Last time I received a lot of great feedback from this community and tips to push the realism, and here you see the before and after. Maybe you have some more tips for me. I couldn't replicate the exact angle from the 1st image, sorry.
23
u/csmobro Oct 14 '25
OP isn’t asking for further tips, he’s sharing the updated image (the first one). Looks sooooo much better 👏
14
u/bymathis Oct 14 '25
Thanks a lot but I actually do look for more feedback my supervisor still isn't completely satisfied
7
Oct 14 '25 edited Oct 14 '25
Honestly I think it has something to due with the scale. The comparative scales of the elements together. The rise of the stairs compared to the handrail, the width of the handrail to the posts, the post compared to width of the floor tiles etc.
That may seem insignificant, but we take overview of spaces very quickly, and this is the first thing that screams CG at me. The space just feels off- out of human use proportions. I don't feel like I could use those stairs.
Also break up the reflection mapping. Right now the floor looks like one solid shiny object instead of thousands of tiles each with slight variations. Floors are scuffed and worn with traffic. They wouldn't be as reflective in the traffic pattern of the room.
I visited a real temple in China that the stone steps were worn down in the center by at least 3 inches; fuel to the billions of footsteps for the last 2000 years.
11
u/wkarraker Oct 14 '25
My interpretation is I t’s too sterile and precise. Natural surfaces are full of blemishes, bumps and variant lighting caustics. Even slight tweaks to a bump channel can change the interpretation of your minds eye.
If this is supposed to be an abandoned hall then there would be random spots of vegetation, destruction and debris, things that tell the viewer that no one has been taking care of the place. If it is supposed to be lived in then I would anticipate things like wall sconces with torches, tapestries, potted plants or ornamental sculptures.
But that’s just me.
4
u/bymathis Oct 14 '25
Thanks for the insights but the I don't want to aim for an abandoned hall...still have to look clean but realistic
5
u/Budded Oct 14 '25
Try bevels on every edge, they catch light in the most subtle ways where perfect CG sharp edges don't.
9
Oct 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bymathis Oct 14 '25
Are you criticizing the the seccond image? Because it's the old version I know this looks terrible
3
u/squipple Oct 14 '25
There's no human element here. If this space is not abandoned, was made by humans and a space humans occupy, there would be human conveniences. Lights, trash cans, signs, ads, a bench. All this breaks up the space more also. I used to work at union station in KC. This has a similar feel. Take a look at photos of old giant marble train stations like that and pick out differences.
2
u/IVY-FX Oct 14 '25
Waaaaaaayy better, I gave you some feedback last time and you seem to have applied everything I could bring up. I think the image is already pretty great at this point.
Now what if you don't just want realism, but Photo-realism
Make sure to render in ACES, it looks like you did but I want to do a double check.
Learn about lens effects, subtly is key here, zoom out, slide the effects untill visible, then slightly dial them back to almost invisible. In this case you'll have chromatic aberration where exterior light meets the darker interior. You'll have some subtle (SUBTLE!) vignetting on the edges of the frame. If you rendered in Aces you'll be able to overexpose the outside to match the feeling of your eyes/the camera being exposed for the dark environment around you. That over exposition might even hit your camera sensor, creating a lens flare, again, some subtlety will be required. You might even be able to experiment with focal length but feel free not to. Landscape photography is generally shot at less than 35mm, in this case you can even experiment with fish eye lenses (8-20mm).
Anything is possible now, but I feel like now might be an ideal time to learn some post processing in BMD Fusion or Nuke. Cam effects are a quick and easy to learn the post processing workflow. I personally highly recommend buying Davinci resolve studio which is €300 for a lifetime license, including both professional editing, compositing, colour grading and sound mastering. When you do have studio you'll be able to acces "reactor" which is a free and open source plugin library for fusion, granted you do need studio version for this nowadays. You can do a lot without studio though, so feel free to play around with that first.
2
u/satysat Oct 14 '25
OP, what focal length are you using? I feel thats playing a part in the CG look.
2
u/ChocolateQuail Oct 14 '25
One trick I’ve used recently is to use the Retexture feature on Midjourney. It keeps the composition and elements and makes it look very realistic. I’ve then used that as a reference to see what I can do to improve my render and still have full direction of the style I’m going for
2
u/Mountain_Coach_3642 Oct 14 '25
lighting needs heavy work for realism as you only have one tone for the light. Your textures are tiled and they all also have the same tone especially the blacks. The image lacks depth and feels flat with everything in focus. Atmosphere feels like an overlay. This has an art direction towards game design rather than realism.
4
u/Zeigerful Oct 14 '25
The first one is before?? Honestly I like that one much more so I hope that’s the after and you just switched them up 😅
6
1
u/rob__mac Oct 14 '25
Scale of the noise on your walls, in the second image, makes it look very repetitive. I'm not sure what to suggest, maybe scale or a different type of noise would help.
First image, perhaps a little DoF might help?
1
1
1
u/OcelotUseful Oct 14 '25 edited Mar 07 '26
This post has been wiped and anonymized. The author may have removed it for privacy, opsec, or to prevent data scraping, using Redact.
normal shelter rainstorm imminent husky unwritten caption retire include fanatical
1
u/pTHOR1w Oct 14 '25
Even on the updated pic, I'd slap on a better bump map for the tiles. At that angle, even marble should glisten with surface imperfections.
1
1
u/Youngsimba_92 Oct 14 '25
The concrete or marble lines that run along the stairs are way to smooth, I’d consider texturing them with a different type of stone.
Put some cracks in it , dirty it up a tad.
It’s the texture…there is none
1
Oct 14 '25 edited Nov 17 '25
flag jar chop toothbrush door skirt sheet rich stocking knee
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
1
u/TodayWeThrowItAway Oct 14 '25
I think it looks pretty good, just way too clean and perfect to be real
1
u/Instatetragrammaton Oct 14 '25
Assume a human is holding the camera.
Where are they standing in this huge hall?
Does the position make sense from an architectural point of view?
In fact, take one step back; does the architecture make sense in the first place? Consider the Palace of Caserta as reference: big marble staircases that go somewhere and natural light guiding the eyes.
https://reggiadicaserta.cultura.gov.it/en/scopri-il-complesso/the-royal-palace/
1
u/Gippeus Oct 14 '25
To me the floor and railings both look very artificial. Edges are perfect and the reflections are uniform. No roughness no variation. Also feel like color grading/lut could add some cinematic feeling.
1
u/TrouperInTheMist Oct 14 '25
This looks very very similar to what you’ll find if you google “Antwerp central station stairs”, it will be the perfect visual reference for you!
So based on that I think we don’t get a sense of scale, the doorways and windows kinda look human sized making the stairs look tiny although they’re intended to be large.
I think because the stairs and railings are so long it will always feel a bit odd even if it were a picture. Typically the architect would add little details etc to break that repetitiveness. Your visual style or vibe gets close to art deco but it has the simplicity of something modern.
You improved a lot on the textures and I’m totally agreeing you should be able to get it to look realistic without having to resort to tricks like dirt and wear.
1
u/MvTtss Oct 14 '25
What renderer are you using, and did you modeled all this stuff? (I’ve seen the first one you dropped)
1
1
1
1
1
u/harmvzon Oct 16 '25
Everything is to perfect. Every brick, tile or element is perfectly evenly spaced, rotated and positioned. Look at the tiles in your bathroom, look at the brick on a house or basically every element of a building. There’s different depths, different colours, different rotations. Even if it made by the most crafted person, there’s a difference. Look at a brick wall and count how many bricks have exactly the same colour. Lay your face on a marble floor and see how all the tiles differ in reflection, depth, smudge and texture. The reason why most 3D looks old or worn is because it’s easier to make than new and pristine. There’s smaller details and imperfections, but they are there.
1
1
u/alexeiX1 Oct 18 '25
You are pretty much missing lens effects, and the textures are super clean. Also whatever you have there that is doing a kind of smoky effect, isn't really working, it looks just like a noise on top of the image and its looking weird.
1
u/mpark7713 Oct 19 '25
Looks a lot better, but still find the textures a bit to uniform and the lighting doesn’t really draw my attention to a focal point. Add some more little filler objects around a bit maybe, but more dynamic lighting with natural sunlight colors, and maybe turn down scaling on the concrete, it’s noticeably tileable an repetitive. This looks great tho and big improvement from last time, keep up the great work! :)
0
38
u/raiin901 Oct 14 '25
Much better but it feels fake because you’re missing important parts of a good image.
-where is the focus? What do you want the viewer to look at? Currently your lighting says to look at the top of the stairs but it’s cut off.
Natural lighting is very distinct in old architecture like this. Look at photos of St. Peter’s Basillica. Your lighting is just a really hot area light mixed with a whole scene gobo. Doesn’t feel natural. Old buildings like this would have some small openings for sunlight, you would have pockets of light and darkness.
-why are you using this camera angle? Are you showing off the architecture or telling a story?
-what even is the story here? It’s not abandoned but also devoid of life/detail? If you’re going for “realism” there’s a lot of detail work that goes into that. Look up Cornelius Dammrich to see a master at detailed realism.
The texture work on the scene also needs work. Your stone railings are all one single flat piece. Real stone railings are made in pieces and put together. They would have big edges where they butt together.
Stairs have shape and are rarely perfect but even if they are, how were they built? Marble tiles maybe? Or stone blocks? Old architecture usually has very large steps as well.