BUZZ LIFE, Andrea Bertaccini (3D)

#141

OMG

This is so Fantastic :thumbsup:

#142

Great work on this… very close to the original.

and on a side note, since the silly conspiracy theory was brought up (pseudoscience, ain’t it great :rolleyes: )

…most of your answers can be found here…
Bad Astronomy
(one of many places)

#143

Very, very realistic. I dont have a words to describe how I like it!

#144

Excellent work! If I had no comparison, you could have sold me your version as the original photo.

#145

@stuh505:
It is a very good recreation of the original photo (please see the link I give), if you compare the two you’ll find that the lighting is more or less the same with the original (in fact very much the same) I’ll understand if you see a real problem when comparing the two, I couldn’t see a ‘statistically’ important difference, that’s why I assumed the wrong idea that you thought the original photo was fake, sorry mate!

#146

thanks for all comments
Render time:
About 1,5 hour on P4 HT 3GHz for an image 2368 x 3135

thanks again at all

#147

Hey it looks so reel ! I’m on the moon man :slight_smile: Good job :thumbsup:

#148

awesome man. very very realistic lookin man. cool work

#149

looks like an original cover, top quality work. 5 stars :slight_smile:

#150

Great work of FICTION :smiley:

#151

WOW… This is incredible… Simply… NO words. It’s like a real photo. I haven’t seen a so realistic render in a couple of months. Really great job. Make another soon!! :slight_smile:

#152

Outstanding piece of work - truly amazing! :thumbsup:

#153

I Agree; a 3d artist doubting the authenticity of the lunar footage should surely rethink his career, since he obviously has zero grasp of how light works.

The moon is a tricky beast. First of all there is no aerial perspective (dampening due to atmosphere) which makes the DOF look “off”… why? Because what you are seeing isn’t 200 meters away, it’s 200 MILES away.

Secondly, lunar dust is extremely retro-reflective, and casts almost all light back in the same direction it came from (that’s why the full moon has no gradients towards the edges such as a lambertian sphere would), hence the very strong front-lit-back-lit effect.

Other ludicrous arguments involve “too big highlights” when what they are watching is in-camera bloom caused by the sun reflection in the visor… ah… I can’t go on. The pain!

It’s scary an educated person would even begin to question it.

Oh… FANTASTIC IMAGE!

/Z

#154

the background and reflection are obviously NOT 3d, as they match the original exactly . . but the rest is damn good. Awesome job.

#155

[left]this is sheer class! awesome work here. :twisted:
[/left]

#156

What can I say? Hehe, Mattia said it, Grandioso!

#157

Yes i right, also you can see in the firt page the wire of the model (the background is a texture) the reflections on the helmet are a mix of real reflections and texture (the arm and the other thing on the end of helmet glass), the image of Armstrong and Lunar Landing come from texture.
all the rest of the model enclosed the clock are full modelled.

thanks for comments

#158

I actually like how you mixed the real and the cg. The reflections and backgrounds are the areas i think that if not done perfectly would have destroyed the believability of the image. 5 stars from me! Good job.

#159

Very Nice :bounce: :thumbsup:

Hug

#160

yéé funky reproduction
i thought i was wrong thinking it was your work, i twisted to “oh its just a magazine” before getting back to the reality lol
great work