But can she play Doom?

I think he screwed up on her ear. If that was in fact correct it would be sticking out 3 inches from her head on each side. I think Dumbo would even be a bit taken back.

But can she play Doom?

Indeed, and at what frame rate?

-and on what machine?

Can anyone say Weird Science?

"It's time to pay the fiddler" - Chet

"But can she play Doom?"

NEDM

I think the hair is still a giveaway. Whether or not I would have known without the subject line is up for debate, but there's definitely some CGI artifacts in the flyaways in her hair.

My first response was..."that's not CG, that's Song Hye Kyo!" (My favorite Korean actress.)

I'm still sceptical...that's freaking amazing if it's really CG.

How 'bout a NSFW shot?

@Munch420s: Thanks for saying what many of us were thinking.

It's a wonderful render. Making it move like a human is still a huge huge step.

Wow. That's really good. At first glance I really can't tell.

If you look a bit at her hair though, it looks a little weird, especially where it cuts off right above her eye. It is a little to transparent.

Still, it's the most realistic one I have ever seen. Did he use real photographs to make it?

OMFL ... can you imagine the kind of "celebrity caught in the act" pics that we're going to see now ...

and every celebrity will be suing every mag saying its CG not me .... oh so looking forward to a new phase of celebrity craziness ..

But on the whole ... this is freakin awesome ..

The mouth is what made me question it. To me, that seems to be the only give away.

It is the hair...the hair gives it away.

Did anyone ever see the 1981 movie "Looker"? http://imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

Back then, it seemed far-fetched, but now that we have seen reports of actors being digitally manipulated and the actors asserting their rights, perhaps we are seeing this movie's plot unfold.

This will change porn and laws about porn as we know them

can imagine how much better doom will look?

To me it looks like a wax model or latex real doll. I wouldn't have pegged it for CGI, but it doesn't look lifelike.

Perhaps if the site would post a current 'real' pic of the lady we could be more objective.

It still looks fake to me. Mostly because of the hair and the sort of fake, way-too-glossy shine the skin has in some places. The ears are kinda off too IMO.

I dunno, it still feels fake from a real photo. Sorta like how you know that anything in Playboy has been airbrushed to hell and back.

@Geckotek: feel free to follow the link and read a little about his process.

Yep. not quite enough "chaos" in the hair. Other than that it's almost life-like.

awesome....@Munch420s:

Everyone's a kickass critic when they know ahead of time that you're looking at a fake. You should have put the photo in a group of 6 or 8 similar portraits of different people and asked us to pick out the fake.Then you'd really recognize what a great job the guy did. My hat's off to him for doing such a great job.

Yeah it's great. I totally think it is awesome. But... the hair... it's just not right. Look at the top of her head. It's too perfect. Un-naturally perfect.

For me, the skin gave it away instantly, it is too waxy looking, especially where her top meets her chest. it shouldn't have any highlights. But that is the most realistic CG female I have ever seen.

@Grasky, we are not even close yet, they still need to animate it realistically.

But, can you play her on Blu-ray?

@Robotube: Maybe she needs Chap-Stick.

Yeah, the hair is fairly unrealistic. Which is a shame because the rest of it looks so real.

We have a professor that does tons of research on crossing the "uncanny valley" and will always try to pick apart these sorts of images. He's currently working on robotic research though. (I haven't work with him on any of that stuff, I just know of his work).

The lack of SSS (Sub Surface Scattering) gave it a way for me... And I'd argue that there are some animators out there that can create a completely convincing human. O think it was the Final Fantasy movie years ago, in which there were moments where you could almost forget that what you were watching was CG.

Alright fellow Gizmodo readers, lets all get together and invest in the first ALL CG Porn magazine. Half the playboy models are mostly plastic now anyway so why not build the perfect models ourselves and showcase them?

Our mansion wouldn't be quite as fun as the playboy mansion though. Arrgh!

Hair: not real
Face: symmetry too perfect
Eyes: again, eyes track. Too symmetric
Skin: map has good blemish and tone; too good as no pores, wrinkles (not just from age)...
Facial hair: oh you want perfection, you got it

A very good modeling in all. Animating this and making it human is still years (and code) away.

The only thing missing now is the "jiggle" effect done on the DOA characters.

It looks like a real photo, where someone has added 2 fake motion blurred sqiggly bangs on the sides and some airbrushing to make it look like a realistic fake.

It is an impressive render.

Just a small typo, but stands out. It's Pixologic not Pixelogic... nice render anyway ;)

Where's the full body shot?

Easier just to use a camera maybe?

I'd say the hair is the only problem. It's a little to perfect in places and a little too chaotic in others. The skin and the lips might not look exactly like you think they should, but if you hadn't known it was a rendering I think you would assume it was lighting. Alot of strange things can happen with lighting.

Personally I think I would have assumed it was a photo and someone played with the hair in photoshop.

yeah the ears suck

I don't know how you tell the difference between this CGI picture and any 'airbrushed' picture of a runway model. Come on, be truthful. The "no facial hair was a dead give-away" comment by SPARE_CHANGE just seems too nit-picky to me. You mean to tell me that you could look at a Covergirl model in a magazine that's been air-brushed to high-heaven, and be able to pick out a facial hair on that image (despite it being a photograph of a real person)? I call BS on that one...Looks dead on REAL to me. I only started looking at her hair as an 'unnatural' thing AFTER I read the caption that it was a CGI image....

Closer and closer, we draw to breaching that uncanny valley.

Microsoft,
Please take note, I want her as my next OS interface.

I really can't tell the difference between this picture and the photoshoped pics in magazines. Looks quite realistic to me.

And i join those that don't know how some of you keep coming up with excuses to say it doesn't look real. Like pharmboy said already, and i'd add Saeder's comment on the lack of SSS giving it away (great excuse to look an expert, read the guy's make log and you'll see he used SSS)

Now make the full CG body please..

I just asked the CGI version to have sex with me and it said yes!!!
Finally somthing that wants to have sex with me!

The sad thing is the artist felt the need to give her "western eyelids" She doesn't have these (not in any of the reference photos, anyway), yet the model does. Many Asian girls get surgery to make their eyelids look less Asian.

I'd pork her.

I'm just waiting for the eds to come back and say, "oops, that was the real pic of her. Here's the CGI one."

For those who claim that it was easy to spot that as CG, it's only because you knew it was. That image could easily pass on any celebrity website or magazine as a photo and no one would ever know. All it's lacking is background. Reaching undisguisable photorealism with 3D or vectors is possible today, as it has been with fine arts for centuries for those who really has the will and skill to strive for it. Animation is much harder to do but that can be done too, today, not in distant future. It just requires tremendous skill, good resources and lots time. Not really worth it unless done for the sake of art, for movies and commercials it's way too expensive compared to real people and camera.

Just one example of photorealistic oil painting, Lorraine Shemesh, Painted Pools. http://www.lorraineshemesh.com/art/pools/CD1_38.html

And yeah, I'm a 3D visualisation student, and green of jealousy.... But I'm just starting up, maybe in few years...

Actually, WIRED had an issue chock-full of CG babes (can't recall which issue). I think they look great, including this one.

O.O awesome

Geisrud says: [reply to this comment]

I'm just waiting for the eds to come back and say, "oops, that was the real pic of her. Here's the CGI one."

Hells ya

that would be hilarious

The critics here are amusing. None of you would even know this was computer generated if it hadn't been brought to your attention first.

This render isn't just good. It's phenomenal. (That is, if this is an actual render, and not some prank).

Now if they could just animate this with accurate facial and body movements, I'd say we'd arrived.