PetaPixel

Check Out These Computer Generated 3D Renderings of DSLR Cameras

keyshot1

Back in March, we shared about how realistic computer generated images has been encroaching on the commercial product photography industry and killing photography jobs. More and more of the product photos you see in advertisements and press releases these days did not involve an actual camera and photographer at all, but rather artist, a computer, and 3D rendering software.

For example, the Nikon D60 product “photo” seen above was created entirely in Keyshot, a powerful 3D rendering program.

Humster3d is an online store that sells 3D models. Among the 2,500+ items in its shop are three popular DSLR cameras: the Nikon D600, Nikon D5200, and Canon 5D Mark III:

Here are some stills showing what you’d get if you purchased the entirely computer-generated 3D renders:

Nikon_D5200_600_lq_0006

Canon_5D_Mark_III_600_lq_0009

Nikon_D600_600_lq_0001

Nikon_D5200_600_lq_0005

Canon_5D_Mark_III_600_lq_0011

Aside from some strange pixelation in some areas (i.e. the “Canon” on the lens of the 5D Mark III), the shots look pretty usable as product shots — especially at low web resolutions.

Here are a few 360-degree views of the cameras:

Although the quality may not be on par with what you’d be able to achieve in a photo studio and through shooting an actual, physical camera, it’s the price point that makes this type of “next gen” product photo very attractive to “photo” buyers: each 3D model costs just $95 through Humster3D — far less than what it’d cost for a professional to shoot a product photo for you in a full-fledged studio.

And this type of rendering is only going to get lower in price and higher in quality… Yikes.

(via Humster3D via Nikon Rumors)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • aguy

    There’s a bit of flickering and compression issues on the 3d rotations that kinda ruins the realistic quality for me, also the plastic looks kinda fake/not photoreal 100%

  • tttulio

    Watch out for the next model “leaked” pictures.

  • Gregor

    This renders are not that impressive.
    Here are some DSLR renders that look quite realistic

    http://www.vrayforc4d.net/portal/node/1/1?page=7&js=1&destination=node%2F1%2Fwww.3dtools.eu%3Fpage%3D6&name=drehorechaddy&op=Log%20in&form_build_id=form-828d4ff66c0f78e8ad78c96c6059b12b&form_id=user_login_block&view_name=gallery&view_display_id=node_content_1&view_args=1&view_path=node%2F1%2F1&view_base_path=node%2F1%2F1&view_dom_id=1&pager_element=0

    “it’s the price point that makes this type of “next gen” product photo
    very attractive to “photo” buyers: each 3D model costs just $95 through
    Humster3D — far less than what it’d cost for a professional to shoot a
    product photo for you in a full-fledged studio.”

    This is like saying “to get nice pack-shot of a bottle of wine is just to buy bottle of wine”. Photographers tend to think that making nice 3d render is easy like pushing a render button.

  • Salvio

    Since when is $95 “far less than what it’d cost for a professional to shoot a product photo for you in a full-fledged studio”?!?!? That price is absolutely insane, I don’t care what anybody says. Photography MUST be priced competitively in order to survive, no matter what the “level of quality”. If you can’t price your photography lower than that, than you my friend, are screwed.

    “Oh but photographs last forever”. You know what? So does cutlery. By that logic, knives and forks should cost us thousands of dollars!

    Like in any service, people will only pay for photography if what they are paying for is more worthwhile to them than the time and effort necessary for them to do the job themselves.

    Harsh, but true.

    As for 3D models, they are fantastic for prototypes, to simulate rooms, large machines, etc.

    However, if the product exists and can be lit with studio equipment, product photography will always be faster to create, better to look at and CHEAPER than a 3D render.

  • ziplock9000

    What is so impressive about these? 3D Product renders have been done for decades, most of which are far more impressive than these.

  • Goofball Jones

    Hate to break it to you, this isn’t anything new. I worked at a firm that would take CAD files of different prototypes of refrigerators and render them as product photos so their buyers could see what they were, and order the models they wanted for that year. It saved a ton on having to build each prototype physically and photo it.

    This was like 16 years ago and we were making renderings that looked like photos. It’s not that hard and hasn’t been hard for a very long time. Then again, no matter how good and easy these things get, sometimes it’s just easier to set up a table with some lights and shoot something quickly and cheaply.

  • Donald

    There are a few additional advantages to CAD model renderings:

    They can be rendered to layers and/or separate channels, making image stripping into other scene(s) very easy. Also, given existing other scene, or storyboard, the rendering scene lights can be set up to mimic the composite scene. Or multiple iterations thereof.

    Image at 72ppi, 1second. Image at 72,000ppi, image at 50 x 50 meters no problem, might have to run for a little bit.

    Darn, marketing wants name change to D600S+, no problem, rerender 5 minutes, 1 hour, whatever.

  • aa

    why does it feel that photographer should take product shots for cameras. it is a bit morbide this 3d renders for a camera… If photogs aren’t able to do this for their own field…

  • Koto

    Camera manufacturers making 3D renderings of their own products makes as much sense as a Ferrari dealership having a fleet of Lamborghinis for their salesmen.

  • Rabi Abonour

    This article is completely missing a huge point when it comes to pricing here: These $95 models are stock. A custom model is definitely going to cost more than that. So the accurate comparison would be a $95 model to a photo out of a stock library, not the cost of a photoshoot.

  • 2wk

    Did anyone else notice the word NIKON on the first shot is not level with the camera body? These things look like 3D renderings. Wouldn’t a better idea be to use the actual camera they are trying to sell to take the product shot? In the bottom corner they could have text “Image taken with D60 and 105mm micro nikkor”

  • daniel Ballard

    Got the same thing happening in CAD CAM custom jewelry and production jewelry. The cad files render out so well the need for a studio shot is diminished beyond practicality.

  • Matt

    What value do these represent? Anyone selling distributing models of cameras will have the manufacturers product photos available to use for free. If you have a new product that needs to be displayed, then you either need to photograph it, or have it modeled from scratch, which will cost far far more then a $95 stock model.

    Here we have mediocre 3d models for a fair price, but these have a very very limited use in selling the items they are modeled on!

    I fail to see the point or significance of this artical…