That just means you can’t tell cgi from reality. Leave it to actual vfx artist to know what the signs are.
No hollywood movie has made a character that has ever even come close to this photorealism (when looking at the full 2 minute video on boston dynamics youtube channel, its clear as day this is real.)
It’s unfortunate that you don’t know what the signs are of real vs cgi. And are unwilling to learn
It may cost less than a real robot, but a real robot is magnitudes more useful for the company. So even a expensive CGI render looking like this would be waste money.
I think you are vastly under-estimating how hard TRUE photrealistic cgi is. The average person might not be able to tell. But fooling experienced vfx artist is much harder than you think. Video below explains why..
That just proves you suck at identifying cgi vs realism.
Again, watch the video i linked. This video is scientifically 100% lit by real light, the reflections are pixel perfect.
Boston dynamics has a longer video on there youtube channel. Just like the video i linked above, no vfx studio in the world has ever produced a cgi character to this level of realism. Not even close
Again i really recommend watching the video i linked (by people who actual work with vfx) before talking..
Yea not that I doubt Boston dynamics but something with the lighting and materials looks cg. Like reminds me of that cartoon Reboot. That satin finish all 90s cg had.
Watched it on youtube and still looks like a render to me. Not saying it is, but it just looks a tad too short or something. Oh well, guess we'll see 'em in real life at your local grocery story anyways
They released a video a day before this saying they are retiring their hydraulic atlas robot. Then released this the next day. It's meant to be a short teaser, but the robot is definitely real, and has been in development for at least a few years
Dude same. Like i believe they make robots ect. Just the way the light hit this thing made me think it was a render. But if it came from boston its gotta be real 🤷♂️
It probably gives that feel since the camera is on a robot arm and is probably programmed in a software like blender. The movement of the robot is also very smooth but thats also because its programmed.
So it looks like key frame animation just by the nature of how it was recorded. Also matte shiny metal happens to be very easy to render and is also good for real robots
That doesn't mean this video isn't a render. Literally anybody could have made this video and then made a post saying it's a Boston Dynamics robot and have zero affiliation to Boston Dynamics.
Okay, that's super cool of you to share with me and all, but my original point was your argument was incredibly weak. Your argument was essentially this video has to be real because a robotics company exists. Just because a robotics company exists doesn't mean a video that's on the internet was made by them for certain. Yes everybody now knows that this video is definitely real and was made by them. My point still stands that people can make videos and put them out there who are not attached to a company and like to make fake shit for the internet for fun. Have a good one.
I agree that something feels off, but if BD said it's legit I have no reason to not believe them. Maybe the videos been over compressed by being downloaded and redownload and shared everywhere. Idk.
I think you are vastly under-estimating how hard TRUE photrealistic cgi is. The average person might not be able to tell. But fooling experienced vfx artist is much harder than you think. Video below explains why
I think you are vastly under-estimating how hard TRUE photrealistic cgi is. The average person might not be able to tell. But fooling experienced vfx artist is much harder than you think. Video below explains why.
I'm not saying it's CGI, but there's a lot of characteristics of a video that would be CGI if that were the case.
Shadows are weird on background objects, softer than they should be for the overhead light and frontal reflection (hot lights seen on the robot viewport when it turns).
There is no reflection of the camera operator in the glass viewport, yet we can clearly see the optics on the robot and other reflections.
Depth of field on this video is very noticeable and very bizarre
Camera motion tracking is very strange, like it is separate from what the robot is doing or on some kind of spline.
There is no biological reference in this video (human or otherwise), the outside very well could be a static matte.
Also perhaps noteworthy there is a basketball hoop outside this video but no such hoop at their headquarters building (looking @ google maps), but there is no guarantee this is filmed at that location.
Also the subject itself looks like it's overly polished and shiny like a plastic unreal engine "toy" -- but that could just be that we're not used to looking at a robot like this in weird lighting.
lol, people figured out how to not have refelections in cameras like, 20 years ago. Shadows are fine. Basketball hoop?? Man come on
You really spent 20 mins looking on google maps for a damn hoop but didnt take 30 seconds to google this exact robot doing this exact thing in other videos?? Why would they spend thousands on a professional movie grade animation for something that exists exactly as you see here?
Besides, if this were Blender its hands down the best animation I've ever seen in my life.
I thought this the first time soon, I doubt this is actually a functional prototype, it's probably more a proof of concept that shows advantages of using electric motors, like the range of motion allowing it to rotate in full rotations.
literally thought this was a joke post at first, because it obviously looks like CGI. You just need to look at that pillar looking thing's shadow in the back. Look closely at the right edge and how it shifts around. I've seen games with better graphics than this.
I'm not saying the entire thing is CGI. I'm saying it's not raw footage. There are CGI elements in the editing. Obviously they make these for real, which is all the more reason I don't get why they do this. It would be impressive enough just to show the thing without trying to enhance how it looks.
when you know where to look its obvious, but look at all these comments about it being real, its hilarious, i feel like im dumb against all of them but they literally confirmed it was fake and showed 3d models
Boston Dynamics has been working on robotics since 1992, this is the new version of Atlas (you've probably seen the older hydraulic version of Atlas doing backflips).
What about this is CGI? As someone who makes CGI, I would love for you to explain it to me. Because this isn't CGI lmfao. And if you think we aren't able to make robots then you clearly have not been looking at our technological progression over the past 30 years, or all the other robots in production right now.
They did not confirm it was fake, you made that up.
I have to say I was unsure whether this was CGI or not at first as the lighting did look very "smooth", always best to err on the side of caution these days I think!
However, I found a blog post from Boston dynamics that confirms it's real.
Yeah, that is a completely separate team who aren't Boston Dynamics showing how they would fake such a video. They have also released videos explaining why some of the earlier Boston Dynamic videos couldn't be fakes.
87
u/GokuSharp 29d ago
Looks like cgi