Reality check – making 3D relevant
Blog: Kresten Thomsen
‘What you don’t see is all the 3D that looks like real photographs.’
When the word ‘3D’ appears in the headlines it is, almost invariably, supported by crappy images that look like crappy imitations of real life. We have all seen these lame ducks, either in the news or in computer games.
But what if you could take photographic images without the use of a photographer – or even a product? What if you could use 3D technology to produce high-end pictures of homes, furniture or materials without having to produce each product or material? Imagine eliminating the use of prototypes because you can see the end product in real life as you design it (it would certainly reduce the greenhouse effect), and then use the same technology to test user-friendliness, determine inventory and stock, and minimize losses with products that your focus group doesn’t approve of anyway.
The idea of taking a proposed product, testing it against the market, redesigning according to calculated focus group demands, and producing marketing material without an actual production run makes incredible sense – not only from a green tech point of view, but also in terms of hard cash. To reduce the cost of photography by 50 per cent is, in itself, highly relevant; but also to adjust your inventory according to demand is almost invaluable for anyone in the manufacturing business.
And then when you saw the word ‘3D’ again, you would still see all those crappy images. But what you don’t see is all the 3D that looks like real photographs – because you just don’t notice them. That’s when 3D technology becomes relevant from a user’s perspective, a designer’s perspective, and from the finance director’s perspective.
3D photorealism isn’t about making things look like real life; 3D photorealism is about making 3D a part of everyday life without anyone noticing. That’s when you’re really talking photorealism – when it isn’t a ‘Second Life’, but already part of your real life…
Robert Fiorito, Owner
