I did cite a source: subsurface scattering is an example of simulating light absorption. It is an example of things that you just claimed aren't getting better actually getting better.

You're attacking my arguments and getting more hyperbolic without any examples. What specifically doesn't look real? What are you actually claiming? What is your criteria for whether something is "real"? What corner cases are you thinking of that cause color multiplication to break down so frequently that it's a bad approximation most of the time? Can you give some examples of state of the art CG that intended to improve realism but doesn't look real?

I'm not claiming that everything looks real, nor that all CG is realistic. I'm claiming that CG is getter better over time, and that some things are already indistinguishable from real. The number of CG things that look realistic is going up over time, and it used to be 0. There is a trend here that reality contradicts your original basic thesis that nobody can rendering something realistic.

My 99.9% number wasn't a claim, it was a made up number (which I thought was obvious, sorry). I said "If the result is 99.9% accurate... then it's a valid model" to back a point: the point is that if multiplication is predictive then it's a valid model. That's how all of physics works. Acceleration under gravity is an approximation.

You haven't demonstrated that multiplying doesn't work, you've only stated an opinion. I'd like to see some examples of what you mean, because it appears to work very well from where I'm sitting. The colors of grass, bricks, wood -- diffuse materials -- is very closely approximated by multiplication, enough that we can in fact measure how good the approximation is, and humans cannot tell the difference. Therein lies the problem with your argument -- if I can't tell the difference, that is my definition of realistic. It doesn't matter what happened under the hood. You seem to be claiming that only reality is good enough to be realistic, because anything else is cutting corners.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about real life defying BRDF measurement. One of the ways that CG is getting more realistic is precisely through various gonioreflectometers, some of which shine lasers and measure the output from all angles. Material catalogs are currently being constructed and sold to CG companies using higher and higher resolution measurements of exactly what you're claiming isn't possible and doesn't help. People buy them because they improve realism.

> My argument is that if you get a bunch of people together, show them simulated video and real video, and ask "Which of these are simulated?" they will correctly identify the simulated video as "not real" with significant accuracy -- given modern techniques, probably >95% accuracy.

Every year Autodesk runs the test "Fake or Foto". http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto Less than 10% of people are getting them all right this year, and a considerable number of people are under the 50% line. This isn't scientific, of course, but see if you can score 100%. This is an indicator that CG is pretty good. Will you admit it if you don't score 100%?

Earlier you made an argument that stills are looking okay, but moving things aren't. The problem with that argument vs color multiplication is that color multiplication is used on stills, so if that's what's breaking down, stills should be obviously unrealistic.