is it photorealistic enough?
for what?
>>500282
I only have one thing to offer here. You can see slight indications of truncations around the edge of the base. Otherwise, it looks okay to me.
>>500285
true, I guess I didn't subdivide the base enough to make the edge smooth. thanks for noticing
>no caustics or any reflection
defently not.
>>500282
Put it in HDR environment, then It will probably be.
>>500291
I thought of that, but there's not enough direct light shining through to have caustics and shadows, all the lights are soft ambients.
>>500282
>no caustics or light dispersion
its meh at best
what you made it in?
the sad truth is most renderers cant do glass since they lack basic raytracing properties
>>500308
then the focus point would be at the base under the glass, a tiny white spot
caustics is one of the things we first notice when we look at shadows casts by lass objects
>>500309
cinema 4D and vray
>>500282
shadow under the edge of the base throws it off.
What's the point of all those several thousand dollar rendering software when a skilled artist can come up with a photo-realistic looking image in 5 minutes?
>>500418
Now animate that with accurately updating reflections. Or make a version that is not potato resolution.
>>500282
looks fake as shit
>>500418
because it takes 40 years to get that good to draw in in 5 minutes you fucking retard
