It's really simple to do. Start with the canvas, then remove everything that doesn't look like Morgan Freeman! 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Morgan Freeman drawn on iPad
- Thread starter costabunny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
To the "skeptics", what exactly is your explanation of what the video clearly shows? Dozens of people screamed fake at gizmodo; not a single one could logically explain what they think makes it fake beyond "it's too good"...that is to say "I can't do that, so I can't believe anyone else could". No one could offer an explanation of the video. They just kept repeating "fake".
But it looks like a high rez photo. If it's real, the guy is a genius artist. My hat's off to him
Agreed, if real it's awesome. I think it's real, but I have been wrong once before in my life.
Why is it pointless? The artist probably enjoyed creating it.
It's actually quite possible to paint something that looks close to photographic by slowly rendering things in. He obviously had reference material. Early on he chooses a lot of the color palette. A lot of that detailing process is just a matter of differentiating things to avoid identical pores and adding some of the distinctive facial marks. I linked to someone who does dry brush painting a bit earlier in the thread. You can see a similar effect in less time, because it's not as detailed. Instead the other guy relies on gradual abstraction, but it's less likely to be referred to as a fake. I can't necessarily produce a portrait like that, but I have painted backgrounds to photo comps from scratch. I have painted in things like lashes on photos. If you study enough reference material, understand that color is influenced by what is being reflected (well really refracted, but not going into that), and learn to go largest to smallest in terms of details, you can get closer to this than you might realize given enough time. It's really the last 10% in terms of detail that makes this so impressive.
Not sure why you're quoting me in this reply. I have no problem believing the video and image are real. I'm asking the skeptics to spell out what they think makes it fake, beyond "it's too good" and "it's impossible".
Last edited:
Ahh mainly as a jumping off point for the gizmodo reference. I wasn't really trying to argue with you. Maybe I should have written a little differently or clarified that. On a side note, I hope he paints John Cleese next.
I would still like it as a photo.
I'm inclined to agree. When overlaying the real photo in the gif comparison... even single "hairs" match perfectly. That's way too much detail to replicate.
Well, I'm 86.7% sure it's fake anyway.
If this is real then Steve jobs isn't really dead.
Guys, it's fake. Perhaps 200+ hours fast forwarded in reverse.
If this was drawn on a galaxy note 3 or 2014 note 10.1 then yes. This is in an ipad. There is no pressure sensitivity therefore the accuracy at this level is non-existent.
Guys, it's fake. Perhaps 200+ hours fast forwarded in reverse.
If this was drawn on a galaxy note 3 or 2014 note 10.1 then yes. This is in an ipad. There is no pressure sensitivity therefore the accuracy at this level is non-existent.
Especially on an iPad. Literally every stitch in his jacket, highlight on the face, and hair on his head matches.
Slowly is the key word here. If guy claimed he banged this out over a couple of days, I'd find it hard to believe. But if you have the patience, the know-how, and 200 hours to work on it? Yes, it would be very possible to make a painting that looks nearly indistinguishable from a photograph.
The picture is incredible, but detail that exacting is hardly unheard of. I've seen my fair share of videos where an artist uses nothing more complicated than charcoal pencils on plain white paper that ended up looking like a high quality black and white portrait by the time they were done with it.
I linked a video like that. The purpose of linking it was to show that it's possible. Dry brush has a very subtle buildup, which is interesting. The slight non-uniformity fools the eye into the impression of abstracted texture, so you get just a little bit for free. It's something that you don't really get with digital painting. I point out quite a bit of what I think is interesting above. A lot of artists make what I would call mistakes, like using completely desaturated highlights, or attempting to add brightness solely as luminance, rather than considering a balance of what is reflected and what is absorbed. I can see how he would have done this, even if I couldn't necessarily repeat the work. Even if you're working with a photo, you can do a lot of this. Ever wonder what they do if hair is covering someone's eye? I mean you need good reference, but eye swaps don't always work due to perspective differences. If it's small/low detail relative to the image, sometimes it's faster to just paint the damn thing. It's common with structures too like cheekbones. If the person doing it doesn't know facial anatomy, it will always have soft edges.
Anyway I noticed he blurred things in a bit at times as a base. I noticed some scatter brush work, but they definitely went and worked it in down to the smaller details.
So basically you're saying it's fake because Photoshop. Ok. Good argument. As if there is some kind of "deconstruct" filter in Photoshop that you magically run, then come back after lunch, and you have a video like this.
Have you ever actually used Photoshop? I use it 10 hours a day 5-6 days a week, and I can assure you, there is no easy way to reverse engineer a photograph into brush strokes, record it, and play it backwards to make a video like this. And if somehow there was a way, it would be equally as laborious and time consuming as painting the image in a normal way. What would be the point of spending 200 hours to do something backwards that would take 200 hours to do forwards?
People, stop for 5 seconds, and use your brains, before you dismiss everything as fake that you can't understand or is beyond your skill set., I have yet to see anyone describe a thoughtful convincing argument against this being legit. People keep shouting fake, but have no clue as to what faking something like this would even entail or what fake in this case actually even means. On the "legit" side, we have a video you can see with our eyes. On the "fake" side, we have nothing but raw disbelief and scattered undeveloped conjecture about Photoshop and reverse videos.
Watch the video again, closely. He is not painting increasingly simple brush strokes on top of an existing photo, he is painting increasingly complex brush strokes on top of simpler ones. There is no arguing this.
Why isn't a Pixar movie "fake"? Wait, it is fake, isn't it? It's not real, right? It's computer generated. But didn't people make it? Is it fake because it's computer generated? Is it real because it's an actual movie you can watch, and buy a copy of? Is the copy fake? What about other cartoons, that aren't computer generated, like Bugs Bunny? Are they fake too?
The term fake is useless in describing a Pixar movie. The term fake is useless in describing this video. It simply does not apply.
Last edited:
So you did. I guess I missed it while I was skimming through the page. Oh well, my post just backs up your link, so it's all good.
And to back you up even more, here's this...
...which is all done with pencils and paper, by Diego Fazio
Like you said, you can do some incredible things with the simplest tools if you have the technique and a good grasp of anatomy.
Yup. To back up you and mcdj, you can tell he's using normal digital painting techniques throughout. He starts out simple, and builds his way up from there, working in finer and finer detail as he goes along. You even see him working below layers at a couple of points. He uses just about every tool you can in Procreate.
...which has a brush stroke recorder that hides the UI, by the way.
Even if he did cheat at some point, and start alpha masking through his own painting to a photo on a layer below, he still had to finish a good 80% of the portrait before he attempt that, which was already nigh photorealistic by that point anyway.
But I don't believe he did, because the photo and painting aren't 1:1 exact proportionally. If he masked through it, something would've bit a tiny bit off.
That is really cool. It seems like it would be brutal to do with pencils though. In some ways they might afford more detail than what I linked before, but have you ever tried drawing with pencils? Art pencils are a bit different from those used for writing. You want to be able to add some buildup without it becoming a mess. You have to plan a lot early in the process prior to rendering it in. It's not as easy to create bright highlights, which is one of the elements that make these things appear photographic. People think of photos as having a somewhat wider dynamic range, even though artists from prior centuries pulled quite a lot from the paints that were available to them. I linked dry brush, because if I intended to use anything non digital at this point, it would be that.
It's real IMO.
I've made several semi-photorealistic illustrations that only took 7-10 hours. Investing 200 hours into a painting could result in something this technically good.
I, however, would not have the patience or energy to spend to much time on one piece. Also, I prefer art to look like art, not like a photograph.
I've made several semi-photorealistic illustrations that only took 7-10 hours. Investing 200 hours into a painting could result in something this technically good.
I, however, would not have the patience or energy to spend to much time on one piece. Also, I prefer art to look like art, not like a photograph.
Perhaps it is partially drawn, then slowly transparently overlaid with the photo for a photo realistic effect.
I could see this being done from scratch perhaps in photoshop, with a wacom, but not on the iPad.
As someone else mentioned, the iPad lacks any real pressure sensitivity, whether in software, or hardware form. Also, unless they had a stylus with pixel-point accuracy, which doesn't exist to my knowledge (for the iPad anyways) this just can't be 100% legit.
I could see this being done from scratch perhaps in photoshop, with a wacom, but not on the iPad.
As someone else mentioned, the iPad lacks any real pressure sensitivity, whether in software, or hardware form. Also, unless they had a stylus with pixel-point accuracy, which doesn't exist to my knowledge (for the iPad anyways) this just can't be 100% legit.
- Status