Boston Dynamics Robots Can't be Faked - VFX Artists Explain Why

[@SirWrender]

Bunktown Dynamics 😏

[@dr.springer5300]

Bosstown

[@iaminevitable3774]

Khwasha Manu

[@theasianboy2008]

lol Nice

[@AnasandAmmar]

Hey, wren

[@iaminevitable3774]

@@theasianboy2008 asia ko kun desh bata hos ta muji?

[@JamesFarrOfficial]

Most people know enough about a subject to think they're right, but not enough about it to know they're wrong. SMH

[@jpgdesign]

Dunning-Kruger effect

[@DoomguyIsGrinningAtYou.]

Never be wise in your own sight.

[@rpfour4]

That sounds like a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote.

[@tetsatou2815]

@@rpfour4 It's the most basic premise of the Dunning-Kruger effect. There's even a nifty graph that shows where people of a given skill level will sit on the graph.

[@AWSVids]

Came into this video thinking the exact same thing. Just another example of people thinking they know better than what they’re being told, yet they end up proving that they’re just obsessively paranoid about “questioning” everything they see or are told. And the more logic they have to ignore in order to believe their contrarian view, the more likely they often seem to want to believe it. Like, what’s more logical? Aliens built the pyramids or humans are just good at building things? There’s like a billion times more evidence for the latter, yet so many people just WANT to believe the former. By the same token, what’s more logical? That Boston Dynamics achieved something amazing by tricking us all into believing the best, most advanced and impressively perfect CGI ever created that would have cost more than just building the robots to begin with... or that they just built the damn robots? Like, what would they have to gain by faking it? KZbin cred? A sense of superiority over Hollywood’s CGI capabilities? False advertising lawsuits? Whereas actually building real robots that they can sell, would have a real-world motivation behind it. But I swear, the obsession with conspiracy theorizing these days has really gone off the deep end, and the only motivation people can seem to imagine is that of Bond-villian level evil that just gets a kick out of deceiving the masses for SOME reason... probably “cOmMuniSt” in nature! It’s just a sad silly time we’re living in.

[@GuildOfCalamity]

The idea that Boston Dynamics, a company that has spent the last 30 years making state-of-the-art robotics, just gave up and did a CGI render... is ludicrous!

[@T4gProd]

Yeah, the risk is just too great for them. If they would get caught, and they would, their reputation would be ruined. And that would mean loss of contracts and thus loss of revenue.

[@mushnoodle]

i think if BD would have the means to make CGIs so perfect that nobody can tell its not real anymore not only do they use actual witchcraft but they could just say they did and butter up to disney financially. that said people tend to forget that a lot of things they consider realistic or fake in movies & themeparks etc ironically are animatronics and not cgi. 😬

[@futurodistropico]

Yes they might need some propaganda boost to incentivize fund raising and venture capital. It´s a regular tech company, not some saints.

[@nallen1006]

@@futurodistropico This 100%.

[@jb76489]

@@futurodistropico again, when it gets out that they faked it, do you not think that would affect their ability to get funding? It’s not that they’re saints, it’s that faking isn’t in their interest

[@davidfirth]

Saying something is fake does not make you smarter than the people saying it is real: I feel this is part of the modern "tech-sceptic" movement. That people just want a reason to look down on others, even if it's based on something untrue or not immediately provable. "Oh you don't believe THAT do you?". Insecurity about your own intellect projected on to others.

[@dbt4869]

That's kinda random

[@treiz01]

Man, it's amazing to find you here in the comments. You're an absolute legend, I remember watching Salad Fingers almost 20 years ago - I think it was my first exposure to existential horror

[@saulmb21]

100% agree. That's exactly the main problem in today's society regarding information and misinformation. Ultimately, facts or logic doesn't matter, not even the subject, the only thing that matters is the romantic story of going against the stream; that feeling of superiority for "I am right, you are the fools". That's why most of the time is pointless to debate with this kind of people, they create dogmas and biases stronger than any religious faith at times.

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

david firth doesn't speak much but when he does it's objective truth

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

this similar trend is seen in every aspect of current internet. pessimism is perceived as intellectual whereas optimism is perceived as naive.

[@ivarwind]

In essence, people think the real robot footage is fake, because it looks artificial - because the robots *are* artificial - while your fake robot footage looks real, because it moves "realistically," i.e. like a human! Reminds me of how most of the arguments for the Moon landing footage being faked, basically boil down to "it doesn't look like I'm used to things looking on Earth." Well, what do you know, the surface of the Moon is different from Earth - and real robots don't move like humans!

[@ixcutamp8059]

Your explanation is so on point! if you allow me to, i will use it if i ever come accross a flat earther!

[@ruukotopresents]

...yessss, robots don't move like humans. Of course I'm a human, I move like one, so I'm definitely not a robot :D

[@soup7694]

@@ruukotopresents we all know your secret Waffels, its time to come clean :)

[@davidjones8043]

What a basic ass strawman argument for why people think the moon landing was faked. Smh

[@davidjones8043]

@@ixcutamp8059 no it's not on point. Genius. That's called a strawman. You've obviously no idea whatsoever what arguments are made on BOTH sides about the issue. How does it feel to talk out of your ass so flatulently?

[@No0dz]

To be fair, if I was a Boston Dynamics employee, I'd be wearing that "it has to be CGI" badge as an honor. When you create something that screws the mind of so many people you know you're on to something amazing.

[@margothutton]

If I was a Boston Dynamics employee, I'd be wearing a "it has to be CGI" T-shirt.

[@TonyLeonie]

yeah... sure...

[@DruNature]

like when someone called you a hacker in a FPS game for killing them over and over.

[@mattshelton7423]

@@DruNature “The best compliment always sounds like an insult”

[@h4724-q6j]

@@TonyLeonie outstanding argument you've made there.

[@gd_xl]

I love how corridor uses their own content as examples of flaws. Really respectable.

[@Freakazoid12345]

More like ironic.

[@techstuff9198]

@@Freakazoid12345 Nah, irony would be them pointing out the things they did right and revealing a bunch of flaws they didn't see when they made the clips they're using as the example. You suggest irony, but the situation suggests neither form of it.

[@jmgraydz]

@@Freakazoid12345 you mean iconic

[@Freakazoid12345]

@@techstuff9198 wouldn't that be the opposite of irony? What do you think irony means and how did you come to that interpretation?

[@Freakazoid12345]

@@jmgraydz oh, like that Allanis Morrisette song?

[@turtle4llama]

As someone long familiar with Boston Dynamics work, I'm surprised you guys didn't bring up the dog thing's motion more. Nothing but that real nightmare dog moves like that. There is nothing we could motion capture to get that horrible, reverse-hinged dance. It's terrifying because it's real.

[@thomgizziz]

You can literally motion capture the thing itself... you got too far up your own butt there and started talking shit.

[@skamarfire]

It's a cult of clowns@@thomgizziz

[@MrBashem]

@@thomgizziz ...why would you motion capture the real thing?

[@gkrees9509]

​@@MrBashemyou wouldn't motion capture the real thing bruh

[@Callie_Cosmo]

Slap some motion trackers on a robot dog and then rotoscope in a slightly different looking robot dog call that the silicone valley switch

[@IVWebMedia]

Not to mention the floor responds to the interactions of the robots. Watch the wheels of the rolling robot and the dog, the floor sinks in a bit since it is a soft floor. That's a detail that would be very difficult and time consuming to recreate.

[@MammalianCreature]

You are completely correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

[@Crowborn]

Not to mention unnecessary! If it was a fake they could have saved a lot of time with a hard floor and no one would mind. Very good eye.

[@sqlevolicious]

Trying to look for "hard to fake" scenarios is pretty stupid anyways when you have countless footage and materials to reference to that would be impossible to spend time and money on creating in the first place. Kind of like moon landing denial. It would have been much harder to fake the moon landing at that time than to actually go do it.

[@cbrewitt]

Also the plexiglass barrier shakes when the robot stomps.

[@SirWrender]

Yeah!! We actually discussed that when we filmed this video. It's a great point.

[@MadsterV]

Another detail: you can see Atlas "toe" sinking in the mat sometimes and you can see the mat bending. In some shots the elbows have a sleeve that flexes properly like fabric. Fabrics are difficult to get right.

[@chaost4544]

That is something I noticed immediately off the bat. At various times, the robot would leave a slight imprint where they stepped. That seems like it would be crazy difficult to pull off via cg.

[@dustinbrueggemann1875]

@@chaost4544 There's basically no way for a virtual object to leave a permanent mark in a real scene without throwing off some other aspect of the scene. Either you have a virtual scene element being composited (which is hard) or you have a real change in the physical scene which your cg has to be perfectly synced to (which is basically insane)

[@driesrobeyns2907]

In the original parcour video, you can also see in the final seconds that one Atlas blew a hydrolic line and you see hydrolic fluid leaking.

[@MadsterV]

@@driesrobeyns2907 I completely missed that!

[@MadsterV]

@@wjerame plenty hard stuff left and the examples given were correct. Just because you don't understand how doesn't mean it's not.

[@isaacinternet]

I’m surprised they didn’t talk about how Boston Dynamics has been doing it’s thing for sooo long that if you watched their progression nothing would be super surprising by how advanced their robots are

[@wolf1066]

Yeah, considering we've seen their failures and their small successes.

[@sxndwich3395]

Yeah I remember seeing spot prototypes like 10 years ago lol. They've been working on their bots for a while.

[@catwhowalksbyhimself]

You shouldn't be. They are VFX artist, so that is how they analyze things. If they were detectives or engineers the might use that approach.

[@countzero5150]

The flip blows my mind. I can only imagine how many times that thing biffed it before they figured out the mechanics.

[@skipfred]

I'm more curious about what they're not allowed to show

[@TK0921]

I think the biggest reason people have the immediate "this looks fake" reaction is because of how perfectly in-sync and symmetrical the choreography is and people subconsciously understand and are used to dancers being synchronized in timing, but not in exact movement. As a result it probably trips some "uncanny valley" feeling in our brains and for some reason in this case people are interpreting that feeling as their gut telling them it's VFX.

[@carloko08]

Where are the Boston Dynamics contracts to manufacture robots like this for different defense and mining and construction departments of the largest countries? THERE ARE NO SUCH CONTRACTS, the robot moves too humanly WHICH WOULD ABSOLUTELY SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT COMPANIES HAVE IN DANGEROUS JOBS AND ARMIES HAVE IN DANGEROUS MISSIONS AND HOSPITALS HAVE IN THE CARE OF PATIENTS, that's why I ask you, where are the contracts of large companies with Boston Dynamics to have these robots that they supposedly manufacture? PURE LIES

[@CountDooku420]

@@carloko08 These robots still can't do what humans are capable of. They're honestly only good at dealing with flat terrain unless they have a full 3D model of the environment, which in those cases they usually won't. It'll take a decade or so more work on them before they can be used in such contexts. Maybe hospitals, but human doctors are still better solely for being human. Humans would rather be with other humans than with a robot.

[@gangzilla5716]

​@@carloko08What an ignorant lil brat. Atlas is a testing robot that's not for sale but only for researching purposes, because for how impressive it look it's still incomplete. Also they have a contract with Hyundai. Educate yourself before you go crying on the internet

[@evolatile3871]

While these robots are capable of doing things like dancing or parkour, there are still a lot of things that they can’t do. For example, they can’t consistently run due to their CoG, and they can’t sit down for the same reason. These robots also have a rough time with non-flat terrain, enclosed spaces.

[@carloko08]

@@evolatile3871 hahaha but please, I see that you don't understand that these videos ARE FAKE, NO ROBOT CURRENTLY CAN DO ANY OF THOSE MOVEMENTS, EITHER DANCE OR PARKOUR, if those machines had those capabilities THEY WOULD BE USED MAINLY IN THE MILITARY FIELD AND NOWHERE NOBODY ARE USING ROBOTS ON ANY COMBAT FRONT, that machines could be used in hospitals, in traffic management, in driving vehicles, in caring for children and the elderly, etc., if a machine can do parkour THEN IT CAN TAKE CARE OF ELDERLY AND CHILDREN, and that's why these bastards from Boston Dynamics ARE DAMMED LIARS AND CHEATERS because their stupid robots CAN'T EVEN WALK PROPERLY There is a great global deception in this and I see that no fool realizes it yet, I see that the BD bots are very prodigal in praising BD's lies

[@donutlie315]

I feel like this is reverse uncanny valley, we saw so much cgi robots that seeing one in real life feels unreal. Also, we seen the boston dynamics progress for years they could barely jump a few years ago and they slowly got better.

[@PieMastyr]

Ah yes, the canny mountain

[@Alucard-gt1zf]

It's the boy who cried wolf principle

[@davidjacobs8558]

it moves way better than C3PO in Star Wars. technology has progressed beyond what people only imagined 40 years ago.

[@ckannan90]

Yeah and movie robots are often motion captured or at least animated with inverse kinematics, so they look smooth. Whereas this robot is animated with actual kinematics… because it’s an actual kinetic object. So it looks jerky like old CGI used to.

[@TheBetabot]

which is also why everything filmed in space looks fake as hell. Real space has no air so many optical effect that we are used to only happen because of air. CGI space literally looks better then real space.

[@Ragnarok26]

"VFX Artists explain how ACTUALLY building a robot, and making it dance, is easier than doing it with CGI"

[@warped_rider]

Just like going to the moon.

[@shariniparab9875]

Extra point to be added there ... making it dance and make it look real

[@mikesilva3868]

Agreed ragnarok26📼

[@Tetsuito]

They said it could be done with a few docen of CG artists and a lot of time. That sounds cheaper than building the robots for real.

[@warrust]

advocating practical effects

[@Boris_Chang]

This explains why the credits at the end of a top-tier scifi film, contains hundreds upon hundreds names and sometimes constitutes a huge chunk of the film’s budget.

[@CivilShepherd]

LOL

[@spasmmcspasm]

They showed a snippet of the Pixar movie "Soul" I watched it the other night. I was surprised when the movie ended as there was still 20 minutes to go. Yup 20 minutes of Credits.

[@NewZealandWild]

@@spasmmcspasm ... and nobody reads them anyway.

[@ryanplume1732]

Something else I found interesting when you guys where talking about the shadows was that when the robot is doing the "running man" thing, you can see the mat depress under the weight of the robot, Idk how easy or not that would be to replicate in cgi, but I figure nobody would take that time for such a small detail

[@Scott_english]

This is also shot at a higher shutter speed, which reduces motion blur. This adds to the surreal feel of the clip. So the actual filmmaking choices add to the footage not looking real.

[@grutarg2938]

They need to add some shaky cam for that gritty documentary footage feel.

[@nikkoa.3639]

Granted, it was pretty bright

[@phaeste]

@Dino Sauro boston dynamics has been making absolute top tier robots for a very long time, not only would cgi be incredibly hard to pull off here but it would also be a horrible idea to make it cg from a business standpoint as they have a reputation and contracts to lose

[@airplanemaniacgaming7877]

@Dino Sauro Nice bait.

[@pokemon05100]

@Dino Sauro Nice bait.

[@rishhhh]

"why do people think ours is more realistic than the actual robot" Suffering from success

[@SKY-fu5yo]

lmao

[@Ganiscol]

Kicking humans and shooting guns is obviously more desirable than just dancing in perfect sync. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Juice-chan]

@@Ganiscol I think that just plays into people's paranoia and they tend to believe it is real while the dancing robots from a company look to them like a company that wants to desperately prove itself in front of the investors and has actually nothing to prove for. So they fake that stuff. Again it is people's paranoia playing into that. Both cases tell more about the person than the actual videos.

[@tedl2711]

I believe it is more because people are less likely to believe our technology level is there when they see good or silly things but when they see the things that we fear we are more likely to believe it’s possible. It could be a survival instinct that has us more believe in the danger than the entertainment. Why would a business invest so much money on dance numbers when all of us know from movies we watched that the money is made in making technology for the military. So of course the dangerous one would have to be true and the entertainment would have to be faked.

[@occamsrazor1285]

Ask the wrong question. The right question is, why do people have so much confidence in their conclusions when they know nothing about what ever it is those conclusions are about? And have they been exploited? Have you been "hacked"?

[@Mogu003]

It's actually a win for BD. Where their robots are so good that people are SO UNSHAKEABLY SURE that it can't be real.

[@Relco12]

@@floki1664 wow you must know everything about BD huh?

[@pesty4592]

@@floki1664 you’re calling corridor crew bums, but they near certainly make 10 times the amount of money your minimum wage ass does

[@inkoalawetrust]

@@floki1664 Lol he means that the robots are moving so well that people can't even believe it's real, it doesn't matter if most people can't afford it. The point is that their humanoid robots move so well that it's literally unbelievable, which can show BD that continuing to work on humanoid robots like Atlas isn't some dead end.

[@dookus4530]

@@floki1664 who shat in your cereal

[@To-mos]

Not like they have been at it for 12 years now or anything.

[@jondoesit1240]

Last year my social media teacher thought your guys’ video where you gave the robot the gun was real ☠️. And his job is to teach us what’s real or fake online!!

[@Schregger]

You have a social media teacher? That actually scares me more than the idea of giving a robot a gun and then hitting it with hocky sticks.

[@contac_optics6257]

@@Schregger It‘s actually a good idea (if the teacher is knowledgeable), since social media fucked up a whole generation…

[@billywashere6965]

@@contac_optics6257 Unfortunately, given how schools are, I imagine every social media teacher is woke.

[@MonkeyMcMonkey]

@@billywashere6965What would you want to be taught

[@jayymorris5285]

@@Schregger I don't think this person is in high school. This sounds like a college or independent course

[@aronseptianto8142]

i'd like to say that the fact that people can't tell whether it's real or not is a huge compliment towards the Boston dynamic's team when you cross the threshold of machine preciseness, down to the perfect camera movement and precise synchronisation, you know you've made it as a product designer/mechanical engineer

[@BlissBatch]

As someone who was 100% convinced the video was not fake, even before this explanation-it _still_ looks just like Ray Harryhausen's stop action special effects.

[@PisaniProductions]

I think the ceo said he saw it as a compliment

[@CoreyJBravo]

I literally did my full investigation with sources and all. I still have my eyes lying to me. I think more than anything it's the frame rate and quality of video mixed with the notion that robots couldn't be that advance. The truth is most humans haven't caught up with technology, it's advanced much faster than people could realize.

[@ark_knight]

As an engineer, I would actually feel offended if people said its CG lol

[@adamp9553]

Precise camera movement was achieved with robotics many years ago for mattes to line up in digital effects. Now the walking robots (with crafted paths) are precise enough to fool people into thinking they're fake.

[@ausrick7]

I think people aren’t used to seeing their robots move that smoothly. Even the camera was robot mounted you can see it in some shots. Their older robots had a more jerky motion of quick limb movement at a near constant fast speed and a sudden stop where there might even be a slight rocking due to the inertia. Your mocap performance captured that so well. I think the problem is that everyone had seen BD’s earlier videos so they were familiar with what the robot motion looked like. You guys emulated it really well so it tricked people, but this new video by BD broke expectations so people thought it was fake.

[@billster7100]

This basically explains why I thought that. Even now after changing my mind it still looks somewhat fake to me.

[@wowandrss]

I have seen them all, imo this one still looks janky, that's my #1 issue with the movement. It absolutely is not fluid like humans, which is how it comes off as if you say that they move smoothly.

[@oltedders]

Anyone following the progress at Boston Dynamics knows this is the real deal. Even then, the progress of the last 3-4 years is mind boggling.

[@Celticshade]

I trued explaining it and gave up. This is basically what i was trying to say. We as humans just cant quite believe we have made it to a stage where this is possible yet, and being spoiled with amazing CGI in movies and tv. What else would we turn to but CGI? Even though I know its 100% real there are still moments when it just looks fake.

[@Deady4u]

The age of humanoid robots is here bois

[@ceilnguy4700]

I've seen these robots running around outside in their parking lot when i was working in a building across the street from them....they are truly amazing

[@LEYTHLEGACY]

Cool

[@victorstiles8946]

Lucky

[@yisyis]

the way you worded this makes it sound like BD gives their robots play breaks outside and I love that

[@saltananda3227]

@@yisyis Given all the context I still read BD as Bad Dragon

[@adamfoxton6341]

@@yisyis *Alarm Bell rings, robots pour from the factory* "Oh my God, is the Singularity starting? HAS THE AGE OF MAN ENDED?!" "Oh, no. It's just lunchtime, they all want to be first on the swingset."

[@RayeGunn]

Boston Dynamics released a new Atlas video today, and that came with a new batch of people insisting it's CGI, which is frustrating as someone who has been following Boston Dynamics progress for years. But I've also followed you guys, so knew about this, to post at people. so thanks for making this

[@CoolGobyFish]

woud have looked way more realistic if they shot it on regular camera without color grading and without cinematic frame rate.

[@TheSandySasquach]

People seem to forget that Boston Dynamics have been working on their robots for multiple decades at this point. Not only that, but they also have some of the best robotics in the entire world. If you took a Tesla and brought it back in time to Model T times, obviously everyone would say it wasnt real since they have no frame of reference on technology in cars. Its the same for the BD robots.

[@CivilShepherd]

A Money Pit

[@MontyRoyal963]

It's NEVER gonna happen. It's the AMERICAN DREAM AND UR SLEEPIN

[@alvinip9128]

@@MontyRoyal963 what's never gonna happen?

[@UserStupidity]

boston dynamics even let ppl buy their dog, its difficult a.f to make a cgi copy to give to ppl

[@CivilShepherd]

@@UserStupidity So they say..

[@legitbread]

Omg this was literally the video I needed to tell people why you can't just CG a whole video like this lol! Thanks for making a super insightful video covering this!

[@tecwzrd]

I learned more about all the complexities of creating realistic CGI from this video than years of watching CGI tutorials. Excellent video to show just how many steps would be involved to actually create this via CGI.

[@voidlight6006]

@@tecwzrd for real. I went and figured out how to apply Fresnel effect to all my materials after seeing this.

[@KamikazeCommie501]

You must know some stupid people. Who actually needs someone to explain this to them? Some people must think computers are literally magic lmao

[@DeanS946]

@@KamikazeCommie501 A lot of people do. Its why the general audience complain about CGI in movies and don't respect it. They assume, its just a dude clicking a mouse in an afternoon.

[@inemanja]

You actually can. Although it is very hard to do it.

[@MattRose30000]

IF this was a render, it would be literally the best render of all time, and all other CGI artists could pack it in instantly.

[@livedandletdie]

Just imagine if a game could have this "render" oh god how good it would be, however I doubt anyone would want to play a game that would require 5 Petabyte of RAM to emulate a singular frame. It's literally ridiculous how people could believe that it's CGI. Just making a render that deals with the Hyper realistic images we have in games nowadays, is bloody hard, and it's not really realistic by any standard still. The name is just silly. Because it's a name taken from the art world. Just rendering light bouncing of a surface, is bloody difficult, all we have in every god damn render these days are glorified perfect mirrors.

[@joshuawinstead7621]

@@livedandletdie It's easy, just simulate every photon individually every frame.

[@soup7694]

@@joshuawinstead7621 smart'nt

[@brighttooth3436]

@@joshuawinstead7621 while your at it simulate the whole universe for extra depth

[@joshuawinstead7621]

@@brighttooth3436 That's true, if you simulate every particle since the beginning of the universe until now you'll get the most accurate representation, good idea, I'm on it.

[@orange_turtle3412]

I dont see why people think this had to be fake. BD’s sole focus is making these things. Theyve been working years on nothing but robots. Its extremely easy to accept that this level has been achieved by now.

[@psychobilly42069]

People are really really really stupid

[@reese4077]

Have you considered money and investors for being a reason?

[@psychobilly42069]

@@reese4077 no ones gonna give them money and investments based off just the videos they post

[@reese4077]

@@psychobilly42069 look at the hype they're getting from this

[@trolleriffic]

@@reese4077 Nobody invests in a company because there's a bit of hype about their work among the general public The people who are getting hyped aren't BD's customers so their opinions don't matter very much. Any serious investor does their own in-depth investigation into companies they're interested in before a single cent changes hands. You might invest your money based on how many views and likes a youtube video gets, but you clearly don't know how proper investment works.

[@thyduck7542]

I would like to congratulate physics in their perfect rendering of real life objects, award winning realism.

[@Someone-sq8im]

Nah the award goes to our eyes

[@theresamilia]

Hahahahaha

[@alex0589]

Thanks, duck

[@teacon7]

yeah the metaverse will never catch up to the icelandverse. :)

[@taekatanahu635]

The irony that people have hard time believing robot technology has advanced to that point, yet they greatly overestimate the capabilities of current CGI software and artists. 😄

[@The_Real_Quantum]

Just a thought. Maybe we are uncomfortable with this reality of robots this advanced, so they subconsciously want to find reason that it isn't real.

[@SirNarax]

There is also probably a significant slice of those people who believe something like 'alien' footage can't possibly be faked. People are just selective in what they want to believe in, it is completely separate from logical thinking. "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

[@pillarmenn1936]

@@The_Real_Quantum shrink that down to the west, not everyone in the world immediately thinks Terminator when they see robots. Hell, Japan sees them more as heroes (gundam, transformers, literally any female android character, Hatsune Miku)

[@cripplingdepression213]

@@pillarmenn1936 astro boy, don't forget astro boy

[@pillarmenn1936]

@@cripplingdepression213 basically the OG good robot. There's also Talos from greek myth and the Golem if he counts. Well would you look at that, seems the US and EU are the only ones suffering from robophobia, I wonder why?

[@bulldozer8950]

It’s like the situation of faking the moon landing. If they faked it, thats would actually be more impressive because of how perfect it is.

[@nakedpotato9894]

Its actually the opposite The moon landing is true because its imperfect While in this video it is real because its perfect

[@J_Stronsky]

@@nakedpotato9894 I think he means in terms of perfect replication of the lighting. I can't remember where I saw this, but without CGI (which didn't exist at the time) the moon landing would've been impossible to replicate in camera with the technology they had. It'd be easier to just send someone into space, than to fake it.

[@dibbidydoo4318]

@@nakedpotato9894 The imperfection is perfect is what he means.

[@utrak]

exactly! There is no way in heck they could fake it, especially back then. There's also a Mythbusters episode where they test every method available at the time, nothing comes even close. Also the details like the waving flag check out, that's how a soft sheet behaves in a vacuum, it'll flail around at the merest touch. I think people who think it's fake just don't have an eye for detail. I've always been extremely picky with image and sound quality, always had to get the best stuff (for the money) or I couldn't live with it. Like back with CRT monitors, most people couldn't tell the difference between 60Hz and 85Hz, to me it was night and day and 60Hz was just awful to my eyes. Some claim Stanley Kubrick made the moon landing footage, but as amazing as 2001: a Space Odyssey looks, it is nowhere near the moon landing footage.

[@jtcool1]

There's a documentary called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel. It's an interesting watch.

[@thamirivonjaahri6378]

Simply put if Boston bots were fake, entire footage would be so prohibitively expensive and time consuming nobody would ever bother

[@El_Fling]

fr

[@ToeCutter0]

Finally, an expert opinion! I sent this out to a few friends and family when it first hit and all I heard back were resounding messages reading FAKE! The dead giveaway for me was the foam padding on the floor? This is very similar to what hockey arenas use, so skaters don’t have to remove skates while moving around between locker rooms and rink. I’ve played hockey since 4 yo and know exactly how this padding feels and moves. You can see the robots feet depress the foam with each step. You can even see the seams of the foam tile deform when a robot steps near the seam? I know a wee bit about SFX and continuity for film and just couldn’t see a team spending the ridiculous amount of time rendering the floor to deflect, reflect under multiple shadows, etc just to hide all the imperfections that would result from such heavy layering. Nonetheless, thanks for doing a video on this! I feel somewhat vindicated.

[@TheGuindo]

yeah the floor is what really cements it as real and not CGI. there's moments where the robots' feet sink into the padding toe-first and you can see there is absolutely ZERO CLIPPING when they do this. If anything was gonna clip, it would be there, and there's none. That's *really* hard to get right in CGI with that kind of flooring.

[@ToeCutter0]

@@TheGuindo Exactly. The more I paid attention to the padding, the more I noticed how each step was slightly different based on the movement of the robot. I guess it could be done, but OMG, the effort required for just a few minutes of video?! When I was writing my earlier comments, I had something tugging at my memory, but just couldn’t recall. Over night it finally resolved itself: Anyone remember the IG-11 (sometimes wrongly referred to as IG-88, from ESB) droid from season 1 of The Mandalorian? Lucasfilm must use linear actuators to animate IG-11 when he walks bc it too demonstrates a very strange, but mechanical walk that appears similar to the BD bots? The episode where IG-11 and the Mando rescue Baby Yoda (or, Grogu) after a big shootout shows quite a few frames of IG-11 walking and it’s a bit creepy because it’s a very unhuman way of walking. The joints and limbs are just off, which probably demonstrates how it’s actually a practical effect vs CG. Now that I’m thinking about it, the Book of Boba Fett is only a few months away! Favs & Filoni have really knocked it out of the park with The Mandalorian, and hopefully the new Boba Fett series! We live in interesting times.

[@lonniedobbins1195]

That's the only response you got? *Not How Dangerous These Robots Are To People?*

[@ToeCutter0]

@@lonniedobbins1195 Was this intended as irony?

[@PadreMortalis]

Why is there so many question marks in sentences that were meant to be assertions?

[@asktoybox]

Anyone who's been following Boston Dynamics for a long time could absolutely see this as being real. If you go back through some of their really old videos with Big Dog and the Petman project, you can actively see the timeline of their innovations leading up to this point. This isn't something that just came out of nowhere. The original Petman, which is what these robots are based off of, was literally a box suspended from the ceiling with a tether, with just a pair of legs, trying to simulate a proper walking movement on a treadmill. Similarly, the small yellow dog robot is innovating off the original Big Dog project, which was a huge horse-sized robot powered by an actual gas motor that was designed to be able to move like a pack animal over rough terrain. Boston Dynamics has been working on these robots for decades so when I saw this video for the first time I knew 100% it was legit.

[@puck4801]

This comment is criminally underrated imo. Absolutely spot-on.

[@billster7100]

That's the thing, I have been following Boston Dynamics ever since Big Dog. They really made a huge jump in terms of software with Atlas. It took them 18 months alone to do the programming for their dance video.

[@jamesstevenson9340]

@@billster7100 fuck never knew that. 18 months of pure hard work just to make a 2 minute dance video it. Still shows there is a long way to go

[@ameliathehedgehogfairy9386]

same, I totally knew this was real!

[@republicofcrogstan554]

@@jamesstevenson9340 yeah it's hard to make it worked flawlessly..and when it worked these smooth brains people just saying "Ohhĥ thıs iS faķE obvIouslY!!!" just because it look unreal

[@blowc1612]

The problem today is people learn a little from experts and they believe they know more than the experts.

[@blazingstorm9351]

Sadly that's twitter right now.

[@daboi8734]

All the replies of that comment Corridor gave in the video are proof of that.

[@kjoc70]

Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[@LiMCRiMZ]

@@blazingstorm9351 lmao that's BEEN Twitter 🤣

[@Jimunu]

Thats been throughout human history. Nothing new.

[@jellekastelein7316]

As a former AI student I'm still amazed at how far we've come in the last decade or so in all things related to machine learning and optimization with basically just a few tweaks to neural networks, a few innovations in network architectures, and an admittedly sizeable increase in computational power. I still vividly remember once trying to program a chess robot and forgetting about the thickness of the chessboard, with the robot arm trying to push the piece through the board. >_

[@johnlynnbeck]

When I was in college, we had some folks from a local studio come in to talk to our game dev program about some of the latest and greatest things going on in game technology. One dev told us an anecdote about how his team had spent days recording mocap data from actual special forces operators doing things like room clearing exercises and whatnot because they wanted to receate an authentic experience in-game; However, they wound up not being able to use any of it, because their movements were so practiced and precise, so lacking in any motor "jitter" that it looked robotic and "unrealistic" on the characters. They wound up having to do another session with normal, untrained actors so people would believe the performance. Seems absurd, but sounds like a very similar phenomenon to what is happening here.

[@rayhan4502]

Yea

[@ixinor]

Absolutely makes sense. Having been to bootcamp with veterans and having participated we had a session of outdoor practices. I can't remember the name of the exercize but they were scanning the environment for potential threats and they were standing quiet, moving slow, still and scanning. When behind cover or knowing they're safe they moved normally. But their movements were very precise and much practiced.

[@Foxclip]

The Coconut Effect

[@soundninja99]

Omg, thank you so much for making this. Every comment saying it's fake annoyed me so much

[@tuschman168]

Really! I loved those comments. Some of them are so extremely confident in their wrong opinion. It's hilarious.

[@soundninja99]

@@tuschman168 Fair enough lol. Some of the jokey comments were great too. Like the "we know it's just Clint again" one

[@HuyHoangkominecraft]

yeah, really. There was a guy so persistent that this was CGI and he pointed out how real Corridor video is compare to Boston's one I really want to say that he is a dumb a** but it will be rude

[@SpiffoGaming]

@@HuyHoangkominecraft just do it. Sometimes you need to have just a short moment of rudeness (thats totally not a word) to get it through their thick skull

[@NaughtyShepherd]

If someone is committed enough in their beliefs, nothing will swing them back to reality.

[@TheEvertw]

""why do people think ours is more realistic than the actual robot" Because most people have not watched a real robot move, and certainly not from up close.

[@j.j.k8110]

Agree, that uncanny valley feel where they expect robots movement to be the same as humans, but he moves differently... Robots are not humans!

[@Qimchiy]

That would assume most people would think robots movements are completely random like humans. Never perfectly repeatable.

[@johnhammond6225]

Sadly most people just think they are the smartest person on the internet.

[@johnbeamon]

When the real robots rise up, people standing in line at the grocery store will look at something in real life next to them and ignore it.

[@feisaljauharitufail]

@@johnhammond6225 I agree. I still forget to keep my head down everytime.

[@MewmewGrrl]

I never thought that the Boston Dynamics robots dancing or doing anything else otherwise was fake or looked fake. I honestly didn't even know that there was any debate taking place that they may be fake. I should have guessed that was taking place, since there is actually still debate over if the Earth is flat or if our existence is even real, but like those debates, I wouldn't have taken people claiming Boston Dynamics Robots were fake seriously either.

[@AirLancer]

There are literally people out there who think the sun and moon are fake, so...

[@Sirawxy]

When I first saw the dancing video, I was so impressed that I was questioning if it’s really good CGI. But I also know the tech is totally achievable so I after looked the channel, I chose to believe it’s legitimate 😂

[@AndaraBledin]

The part that really sold me on the BD vid being real was the way the robots interact with the floor. It's a mat that's very slightly padded, so when the robots land, they create tiny depressions for the merest fraction of a second, and there's a hint of bounce in reaction, and it's different levels for each robot because they weigh different amounts. As mentioned, interaction between CGI elements and physical elements is super-difficult and there's nary a pixel out of place in over 2 minutes. Not even the biggest blockbusters can manage that.

[@Dr_Decaf]

Why would you think it’s fake in the first place

[@nhonnguyen7841]

@@Dr_Decaf Usually denial that robotics have advanced to this level. It's a scary thought for many.

[@Dr_Decaf]

@@nhonnguyen7841 it’s an amazing thought. Robotics isn’t the thing you should be worried about, it’s the AI. But we won’t have that for many many years. I wouldn’t worry about it

[@Shinobubu]

same but mostly not just the deformation the robot also adjusts its footing with the plasticity of the floor and the lights interaction between the robot's foot and the foam padding.

[@nhonnguyen7841]

@@Dr_Decaf Robotics should be what you need to be afraid of. While General AI is far off, specifically tailored AI for particular tasks are not. Once production lines are streamlined and modified for warfare, it's a whole different ballgame.

[@javiersolis2993]

I can't unsee Clint's hand throwing the table

[@PhantomFilmAustralia]

I can't unsee the third arm on the Sloth victim in the movie Se7en.

[@Kenoi_]

I think in most people’s minds, robots have been so rudimentary and clunky that they can’t bring themselves to believe that this is where we are with the technology. Give it 10 years. They’ll believe

[@MuppetsSh0w]

In 10 years they'll be indistinguishable from humans

[@bn-tc2tk]

@@MuppetsSh0w lol, that’s funny

[@Dillsfawn]

In 10 years, robots will have advanced even further. The dummies will still have the same belief problem, the details will just be different. The true solution is better education that focuses more on the concept "I don't know everything, so should maintain a mindset to learn" rather than "I learned one thing, so I am smarter than everyone around me". Also discussions on a mostly anonymous platform that mixes comments that can be both serious and comedic in intent(and is not identified as either) does not help much.

[@chucks233]

Well there are people that think the earth is flat so there will be people that wont believe that these kinds of robots exists even if they see them irl

[@eve-llblyat2576]

@@Dillsfawn joe rogan, is that you? in ten years, maybe boston dynamics brings out a new prototyp of their toys, like the humanoid robot who can do this moves in uneven terain and not in a test compount. Nothing more. and they will remain toys, because robots will stay special task units. the best design for a logistik robot is and will be a cart with weels that can load boxes into a shelf, and a welding-robot stays a arm with a welding tool. boston dynamics only try to mimic humen and animals as a showof to amuse the people. you can let them dance or piss beer, ther is no more use. a scifi robot you thinking about is more of software and ai. the sensoric and navigation software is critical to. these robots are complex, and even tesla failed an gave up on an software for autonomous driving. alexa is the best you can get right know.

[@PoweredByDucks]

I like the idea that Boston dynamics is just a team of highly skilled visual effects artists instead of highly skilled engineers

[@mohdhafizuddinruslan3492]

Wow you are unrelateble

[@Dead1yCool]

Why?

[@trolleriffic]

@@Dead1yCool Because it would be funny in an absurd way.

[@lewisner]

It would suck when someone put in an order for a thousand Atlas robots.

[@Toileetpapr]

“The robot dogs are holograms!”

[@Smilenol]

Video should be called: trying real hard to explain to dummies that robots actually exist

[@blowc1612]

We have robots for the longest now 🤦‍♂️

[@DviousDingle]

@@blowc1612 yeah but people think these robots are fake bruh

[@blowc1612]

@@DviousDingle yeah but this guy comment trying to act like people don’t know robots exist.

[@danielposey0620]

@@blowc1612 people aren’t used to seeing robots move this smoothly or jump around so they think it’s CGI, when people think of robots, they think of Number 5 from Short Circuit, lol

[@normang3668]

The weirdest part for me about people thinking this was fake, is that Boston Dynamics have been releasing videos for years, showing the progress of their robotics. Why would they start faking stuff now? Or do they think they've always been faking it?

[@canadianjoe1]

Even in person, the movement feels so unreal and alien, like your eyes are playing tricks on you. If you're in the Boston area, I would highly recommend going to one of their demonstrations at the museum of science or their Waltham facility

[@lucasmeyer6802]

We need more "Why this is real" content. LOVE THIS! Was a super cool perspective to see.

[@samuels1123]

Not only is the mat marked in a way that requires a massive texture, it also must be physically simulated to deform as in some cases like 5:27 where you can see shadows from a toe step deforming the mat, use < and > keys to go by frame.

[@romxxii]

I mean what's easier, Boston Dynamics programming their very agile robots to dance, or Boston Dynamics paying Industrial Light and Magic and Weta Digital the same amount that Disney pays for a feature film-quality VFX?

[@gilgamesh5796]

Ah yes Oscar's Blazer

[@BevansDesign]

Yeah, BD has been posting videos showing the gradual, incremental advancement of their robots for over a decade, so it's quite clear that their robots CAN move like this. What would be the point in faking *this* one?

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

In terms of profit motive? Definitely the former. I mean, even in terms of VFX, we’re talking tens of millions of dollars for this one video, and you can find hundreds of videos of this robot around the internet now. It probably is easier to just develop the tech for real.

[@fakename287]

I mean, if they payed ILM then it had to have been MORE than Disney does, since the Marvel movies have a bunch of CGI errors (that can be found listed all over the internet) while BD's video is absolutely flawless

[@triwahyuu]

thing is they don't actually move every single motor manually for every movement, my guess is they just told the robot where to with some physical constraints, and the control algorithm do the rest to execute the motion of deciding how to move each motors

[@RhiannonSmudge]

I think this is a case of the movement being in a sort of uncanny valley, as is the movement is simultaneously robotic and smooth/human-like, thus it looks like 3D animation. There is so little robotic jitteriness and stiffness that we associate with how we think robots move, to the point where it either looks like mocap or keyframed animation

[@girlord13]

This is what I was thinking. Additionally I think design of the robots suggest that they would be more weighty and move as such. Those sizes assigned to mammal anatomy do not correlate with that light floaty movement in people's experience. Ultimately I think it's all about the norms, what you mentioned and the points made towards the end of the video

[@isamuddin1]

We start touching horror stuff now....

[@ryoid6001]

My mom keep insisting they fake because human creation can't match God creation,she said robot move like human is impossible because human body is greater than machine

[@avisian8063]

@@ryoid6001 🤣

[@ulforcemegamon3094]

@@girlord13 if i'm not mistaken atlas is way lighter than it looks since most of the materials that atlas is Made off are 3D printed and that makes the weight lesser

[@asdkant]

I'd love to see your take on Coraline. The whole "people thinking this is a render" thing reminded me of when I was watching that movie, thinking "wow, the lighting here is SO realistic!" and then remembering it's a stop-motion movie =P

[@MrGamelover23]

They do use CGI in those movies, particularly in the crowd shots of the film that came after it that I can't remember the name of but it involved cheese and the villain exploding after eating too much. Boxtrolls possibly? But yeah I would love to see them look at that company's films.

[@alezanders]

@@MrGamelover23 Yeah that’s The Boxtrolls. LAIKA tries to do as much as possible in camera but some backgrounds and some crowd shots just need to be done in CG

[@ivoryas1696]

Ariel Kanterewicz Lmao, _I _*_too_* thought it was animated, now that I think about it. I just happens sometimes.

[@ChozoSR388]

Coraline was stop-motion animation, though, wasn't it? Edit: Typo'd 'though' as 'thought'. Fixed. Edit 2: No, it totally _is_ stop-motion animated. Direct from the wiki: "Coraline is a 2009 American stop-motion animated dark fantasy horror film written and directed by Henry Selick and based on Neil Gaiman's 2002 novella of the same name."

[@seonor]

If I remember correctly one of the people involved in making Coraline said that only 3% of all frames of the movie have CGI in them. I think it was in one of the commentary tracks on the DVD or one of the documentaries on it.

[@808Tornado]

I'm one of the people who proclaimed this to be fake. I just couldn't fathom that Boston Dynamics had really come this far. I'm genuinely happy to be proven wrong. What they've done is simply amazing

[@kennylex]

I need to point out a thing that can be seen at around 1:27, those robots are rather heavy and we can see security glass on the side, when the robot jump and then land we can see those glass panels vibrate slightly, that is something that CGI creators often forget to do for they know few will pay attention to that ant that it would be unnecessary render work.

[@InsomaniacFiles]

I agree with this mostly but could be caused by an actual performer being there to mocap it. The video is most certainly real.

[@trimtoroof]

And also there is soft cover on the floor, and you can see the impact with each step they make.

[@PotatoRankEX]

@@InsomaniacFiles Ah yes, a person so heavy and hard they make security glass vibrate...

[@InsomaniacFiles]

@@PotatoRankEX you do realize the robots weigh around 200lbs? Where could we possibly find someone that heavy... 🤔 and what does hardness have to do with it? I appreciate your cleverness...not. I was merely saying that effect would be possible if there was someone mocapping during that shot. There are far too many fine details for this to be CGI.

[@fakename287]

@@InsomaniacFiles 200lb is either a very fat, or a VERY muscular human (if theyre the same height as the robot), I doubt they'd be able to jump like that Also, hard (or rather, rigid) objects transfer vibrations more efficiently than fluids do, which is why the other guy pointed out the safety glass thing

[@Mr.Vertex]

the fact that CG is getting so good that people are confusing reality for fake is incredible.

[@jefersonpereira9450]

I thing is oposite, the robots are getting so real and fluid movements that People are confusing with CGI, and that is even more impressive to me

[@DruNature]

people have a poor ability to perceive reality then because so much CGI looks obviously fake, given away by unrealistic movements. even physics sims are easy to spot, so idk who is getting fooled. people need their eyes checked.

[@bones6896]

@@DruNature that really just depends on the cgi. some looks incredibly real while others don't. I mean just look at any recent marvel movie or even the newer star wars movies.

[@ThatOneChipsGuy]

It's a terrifying thing to think about. I mean CGI has been a thing for around 70 years, and getting this close to something that can actually blur the line from fact and fiction is mind-boggling. I mean, cars have been around for around 130 years, and planes for just a bit over 100. Granted they are made by actual people and not made by computers, but for something almost 2x younger getting so vast and complicated is cool, crazy, and terrifying. TL:DR: It's kinda scary how far CGI has come.

[@Agnes.Nutter]

People have been doing that for decades, it’s largely with hindsight that we have such a clear impression of bad CG.

[@SussyBokChoy]

How I knew BD was real: 1: I kept up with the company’s painstaking DECADE LONG LEARNING PROCESS TO MAKE ROBOTS. 2: the floor mats and plexiglass had imperfections that are possible to emulate but not easy 3: the backflip thing. I replayed it a few times the first time I watched it 4: the jerky motion like they mentioned- I didn’t actually “know” know this but it was a gut feeling

[@pixslz9164]

i don’t care if they’re fake or not (i know they are real) but i live un boston

[@exseraph-1344]

@@pixslz9164 uh, ok?

[@legaldrumprogrammer1685]

How do I know that BD is real. Fucking Michael Reeves and Friends bought one of the robo dog. And make it piss on a cup.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

And, if it were fake, the FTC and their shareholders would sue the crap out of them.

[@PHeMoX]

And yet, you could fake point 4. just fine though. I would agree it is a detail a visual artist would easily overlook. However, it is untrue it couldn't be faked in such a sense. And also, a more 'light on its toes' type future robot, very likely wouldn't have the spring-like movement if the end goal is to appear more human. We have to consider that difference plausible, actually.

[@lostteddybear9393]

Step 1: scream "fake" at every video Step 2: be wrong most the time Step 3: be right once; act like you're prophetic while ignoring the other 99 videos where you weren't Step 4: internet profit

[@Scrub_Lord-en7cq]

Unfortunately, the social media platform isn’t a place for seeking validity of information. Books are much better than them

[@gr6e]

The biggest thing for me is that we've been watching this company refine their robots meticulously over the last 13 years. We've seen that the latest iterations look exactly like the robots in the dance video, and that they can already do much more complex tasks than that dance. Why would they go through the painstaking trouble of making the dance video CGI when they have the equipment on hand to do it for real? Simply uploading the dance choreography to the robot, as proven by the commercial versions already owned by many people and companies, is one of the most basic things you can do with it. You can buy Spot right now, and tell it to do that dance, and it will.

[@TheAnimeist]

Most people live in a bubble (they can not get beyond.) It's just the way it is.

[@kevinpeng8295]

Exactly this!

[@bionetik]

Well if you are willing to believe they faked this you are also willing to believe they faked everything and/or many people heard of BD for the first time because of that video (it's by far their most viewed I think) they didn't follow this process of years they Just saw a two minute video with dancing robots and were skeptical since they didn't know about the amount of work going into the whole journey of making a robot move

[@gr6e]

​@@bionetik they didn't have the budget to fake it then or now

[@asipamanu]

Wren: "As anyone who's married knows" AND THATS WHEN HE KNEW, HE FUCKED UP

[@SevenZeroEleven]

At that moment he realized his wife would probably kill him, Niko for the rescue

[@PrograError]

@@SevenZeroEleven hope he didn't tell her not to watch it... cos... she probably will

[@arandil1]

yeh... he gonna die

[@invalidData]

next "onewheel accident" incoming

[@MoonWalkerTexsRanger]

THAT'S WREN HE KNEW ! :)

[@boredguy1297]

Oh man your point about the robot being "animated, but expressed through an animatronic" really hit the point. If both CGI and Boston Dynamics used keyframes to make their animations, then they'll look similar to each other because their movements originated from the same method.

[@angwydud]

wdym "if" they DO use keyframes if im not mistaken but those keyframes are modified based on the situation

[@vertxxyz]

To be fair, it's not the same method. BD has some very advanced simulation behind the animated values they send to the robot. Meanwhile CD has motion capture that's gone through cleanup, and then is manually animated where it needs it. That simulation step is a rather large workflow tool that nobody but BD will have access to. Its feedback loop with reality is completely real, but these robots are being driven by computers, the outcome in animation still likely exists at quite high fidelity and could likely drive a convincing CG version.

[@Thedirt2000]

had to like comment to get to 69 likes

[@TechnicalGlitch-c6m]

I think the main reason people thought this was fake is because robots are usually portrayed in science fiction, and since we're so used to that being the case, when people see videos like 'Do you love me' they immediately think that this is CGI.

[@Avyre]

It's also just the notion of an IRL robot moving that smoothly. We're used to seeing CGI robotics that can twist and turn and move so fluidly *because* they're CGI; a lot of real-life robotics the average person sees don't have that fluidity, they still have a very mechanical feel to their movement. Even the fluid-moving robotics I've seen have been restricted to assembly lines, where they perform a single set of actions in a limit space. These are robots that move with the kind of fluidity we just aren't used to seeing, and thinking about it, probably move more fluidly than a human can replicate because they're being powered by scientific precision. It's like they're too real and so our mind assumes they're not real.

[@wotwott2319]

The uncanny valley effect but for movement

[@MortalWizard]

Yeah, one thing like that is when the robots do flips, they kinda jump up and then spinn, that's usually not how people do flips. Most people (from what I've seen) bend their back and push of from the ground at an angle (relative to their body) to flip over, while the robots kinda seem to jump almost straight up and then fling their legs back to create momentum to spin which looks kinda uncanny

[@Hamachingo]

Factory robots used to creep me out a lot like a kid. Those fluid determined movements.

[@justv7536]

The scary thing isn't how many people assuming it's real, the scary thing is how many people assuming corridor thought it was fake

[@kiwimarshall3937]

@@grievuspwn4g3 Could you please explain the relevance of that? I genuinely don't understand please help.

[@Someone-sq8im]

@@grievuspwn4g3 please explain

[@mysteriumxarxes3990]

I dont understand. please, re-elaborate

[@bestdjaf7499]

It's the light looks too perfect. And then you have the perfect shadows & reflections.... It just looks too good.

[@justv7536]

@@bestdjaf7499 it almost looks like real life, or something Heeeeyy, wait a minute-

[@cdmcrst1292]

So... essentially this is an "easier to go the moon than to fake it in 1969" situation. That's pretty cool! Thank you for the in-depth explanation.

[@EmK02]

I knew I had a deja vu watching this vid, the whole moon landing thing is what it was

[@davisdf3064]

But the Moon landing WAS fake, they just had to film it on the Moon!

[@Gaaaaaame]

@@davisdf3064 yeah NASA was all "I mean sure we can fake it for you, but in order to make it look convincing we gotta go to the actual location"

[@Gaaaaaame]

@@GoldenEDM_2018 No no, I don't think you understand. It is WAAAAY cheaper to film it on sight than to CGI the whole thing, have you *SEEN* the pricing on that?? I mean, a movie bought a whole dang cargo jet to crash into a hangar because it was cheaper than having it be CGI lol.

[@im_that_randomguy]

Hopefully they can resolve this issue quickly

[@some1.one1]

Are they got hacked?

[@smumblo15]

@@some1.one1 yes, I believe so

[@Simon_Rafferty]

I work in Special (practical) Effects on Movies. It's surprising and often a bit disappointing the number of times people tell me something was CG when I know for a fact it was real, because we built it! Someone from Disney told me that the one thing you can't act is fear - and the audience picks that up subconciously & it makes the scene look CG. From one point of view, our job is to frighten the cast - by putting them inside some kind of motion simulator or seeing a real explosion. It also means their physical reaction to the set moving is accurate. I think many people would be surprised how much stuff in movies is at least partially real. By partially, I mean CG being used to replace the background & remove cables & rigging. Really, VFX & SFX are just opposite sides of the same coin - we rely on one another. Neither is better or worse.

[@crowdemon_archives]

Yea, also the other thing is bad special effects, practical or digital, is going to stand out massively no matter what they are lol

[@airplanemaniacgaming7877]

If I may give an example of true and genuine fear: Jurassic Park, with the jeep roof coming down on the kids. During previous test shoots, the roof never fell down on them like that, as it wasn't supposed to. The animatronic pushed down on the roof and it popped down onto the kids. I sure as hell would be shitting bricks if I was in their shoes with how they had things happen!

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

The new Dune movie is a perfect example of the value of both SFX and VFX working in harmony.

[@Simon_Rafferty]

@@OneBiasedOpinion I agree! Fantastic Beasts 3 is another example. VFX Supervisor was Christian Manz - I thought the VFX was much more subtle, but stunning where it needed to be. Better than the previous Beasts films (Sorry Tim ;-) ). Look out for the wand-fight in the jungle at the very start. The bolts of light being shot by wands look VFX - but were actually practical. LED darts fired along tensioned wires by compressed air. It looked amazing during the shoot - and pretty good in the movie! (I may be a little biased!)

[@goldh2o543]

@@Simon_Rafferty it's a shame when a movie like fantastic beasts 3 turns out as bad as it did, because more often than not the FX are AMAZING! I would say the same about the Star Wars sequels. FX teams carry movies more than studios would like to admit. I stayed in fantastic beasts because of the effects, because otherwise it was not a good movie at all.

[@Atlessa]

"Why do people think this is fake and ours is real?" Simple answer: Reality is unrealistic. (TVtropes) Example: If, in a movie, people could see the muzzle flash of a sniper and hear the 'bang' a second later; they would not believe it's real because movies haven't done it like that, ever. Movies have conditioned us to believe that we hear the bang at the same time the gun is fired. Let's not even begin to talk about the bullet hitting BEFORE the bang is heard...

[@SirHenryMaximo]

Exactly! Still in the topic of ballistics, not every shot has a muzzle flash in real life, but whenever the movies aknowledge that, people will complain it's fake. People complained about the SWAT scene in _The Dark Knight_ for this reason, going as far as to say it was a production goof on the IMDb page. The same goes for blood in gun shot wounds. Most times it takes a little while for the blood to spill from a wound, and the Tarantinoesque splatter is kinda rare in GSW to the center of mass. But people would hardly believe that in the movies. Finally, in real life it is common that people keep fighting after a single gun shot wound. I remember people shocked during the compound raid scene in _Zero Dark Thirty_ because the Navy SEALs were shooting a few times at people who were already down, just like it's done in reality.

[@SirHenryMaximo]

The movies condition us so much that here in Brazil there was some criticism aimed at a police sniper who fired three times at a bus hijacker in Rio. The hijacker had set up molotov cocktails on the roof of the bus and spilled gas on the floor. The police sniper took the critical shots when te oportunity arose. Some said it was unnecessary use of force to fire more than once, saying a single shot is capable of neutralizing a person, as the movies taught them.

[@ximm0102]

@Pyrrha Nikos Well, I wasn't expecting Pyrrha Nikos of all people to come here and talk. How has your death been so far?

[@timothymark]

Better Call Saul actually does it realistically like this in a certain sniper scene.

[@jacks1083]

Pyrra Nikos, in a comment section under a Corridor Digital video about our future overlords, spitting facts about Tvtropes and gun ballistics. *I was gonna take a drink but I'm taking up a Bible instead.*

[@benjaminlecrone9122]

You guys should have Captain Disillusion stop by and do an extended “Bunk or Debunk” episode together. Either way keep up the great work.

[@Keiuran]

Or just analyze the amount of work that goes into his videos.

[@bmcgee3507]

Everyone who’s confused, they got hacked by scammers and should have their account back within a few hours at least and days at most. As you can see, they have confirmed the hacking with the profile picture. The videos are just privated, not deleted, so it will be easy to get the channel all back once they change the password and stuff.

[@PhilipKloppers]

Take a look at the floor mats under the feet, specifically when the feet are lifted... It's most apparent under Spot, probably because of the higher point forces - notice how the foam matting takes a few frames to spring back to flat from the weight applied by the feet.

[@nicho.7400]

For me it's just the hip area of the robot. It's a little detail but how it moves is so incredibly robotic and such a little detail that most people wouldn't even bother. Using a motion capture suit wouldn't give that effect either. It's also the shadows and how perfect they are plus how they just feel like they are supposed to be there. The light and the shadows are great and make it actually feel like it's there, which yes, can be made however that sort of perfection is mostly only possible for giant studios like the ones that work on marvel videos. The Corridor crew, although amazing at CGI, haven't quite come there yet. Their boston video being proof, as ignoring the imperfections of things that they missed like the hand, the robot (Clint) still felt really out of place. Plus in the video (Not their Corridors video, the video they are talking about) the movement feels extremely robotic and although sure, you can fake that with CGI and motion capture suit, it won't usually come that close to robotic movement

[@theexchipmunk]

It really comes down to humans being living things. And living things always move. They never hold still. There is always a slight twitch or a certain unnecessary movement. But these robots? Nothing. No a single unwanted move. Not a twitch. They just move to perfect o be based on a living being.

[@benstanfill363]

I think corridor could, but I don't think they're has been a monetary incentive to do something that good. They aren't getting paid millions for a video, so it just needs to be good enough.

[@jonshneebley]

It would be impossible for Boston Dynamics to put motion capture on their robots and map their movements.

[@locklear308]

They can literally create anything with cgi

[@nicho.7400]

​@@locklear308 Yeah, it's not that hard to make things happen using CGi. Though you can make a lot, there is still room for human error, something that can become quite extremely noticable. Though Corridor Crew has made many amazing things, there are things that don't feel right. Much like their Boston video, though Clint did an amazing job as a robot and the whole team at CGI, the robot still managed to somehow look out of place for whatever the reason might've been.

[@larkermouse]

At 5:46 there's a moment where you can see sunlight on the floor, that seems to be reflecting off of somewhere else in the room (off camera). It means that there are shadow bits from the robot legs going in multiple directions, mainly from the sunlight, but also from the reflected sunlight. They mention how hard shadows are around this time in the video. I can't imagine how hard it would be to have flawless shadows from multiple light angles.

[@davidjd123]

are you kidding me? all this will take is hours of rendering, we have amazing shadow technologies today.

[@HoHhoch]

@@davidjd123 Hours of rendering completely disregards the sheer amount of man hours required to do all the shadow work. You're really simplifying the issue here.

[@yoavsigler4457]

@@HoHhoch it's done automatically in the render, the work is only in building the scene itself and animating the robots

[@tabithal2977]

@@yoavsigler4457 as corridor crew said, that would require the actual environment itself to be cgi as well, which it just isn't.

[@TimeMasterOG]

@@davidjd123 yeah its not fake... in one of the boston dynamic videos you can see a hydraulics line burst and leak... not exactly something one would see in a cg video really

[@JiReyAnimation]

Seems like the ExpressVPN ad didn't age well.

[@Undy1]

Oleksandr Stepanenko does short videos of industrial robots and various motors and actuators moving with incredible precision. He films them on photographic backgrounds with everything perfectly clean and spotless (to the point of having very little to no surface imperfections or even a speck of dust anywhere) and very soft lighting - because of it all of his videos look like CGI even though they're 100% real. He even released a behind the scenes video and it too was so perfect that people thought it was CGI.

[@Takyodor2]

Omg, I was about to suggest this, but had forgotten the name of the channel! Yes pls Corridor, would love to see analysis.

[@dancep]

Here is the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZfFnpqrd8yJhqM

[@Undy1]

@@dancep I think my personal favorite in terms of looking like CGI is this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6eooZxqe6mbq6s It looks absolutely unreal until suddenly a hand appears and picks up the actuator :D

[@theunprofessional5359]

Basically, the level of complexity and detail is to the point of " This would be easier to just build the damn robots and film it." Same reason miniatures, models, and a host of other "in camera" effects are still used. CGI is great, but it's not a cure all. The absolute BEST results come from collaboration from all the art disciplines. All things said time and again on this channel. And that's why we're here!😁

[@TheKazragore]

There's a reason the original Blade Runner film looks as good as it does from an SFX perspective.

[@morosoph]

Also, as you've pointed out several times in VFX artists react, there's a difference between "Hollywood" real and "real" real. People are so trained to think of what they see on screen as "real" that something shown as it would be in reality ends up reading fake. In this case, the robot movement doesn't look real because all robot movements people have seen for the last 60 years have been dressed up humans, motion capture from humans or human-animated.

[@User-md3ul]

I think the best example for that are lens flares. We universally accepted lens flares as something nice, required and "realistic", even though it is in itself a "bug" in how cameras work and people tried to never get one at first, when shooting movies. Until somebody over-used it and it became kind of a style. Now you have lens flares added to games and movies, even though they try to show you a scenery that wants to be a real life experience (so as close to how you could experience this in person as possible).

[@duh_outlaw]

@Nabila Okta what da bot doin

[@philipus8641]

even a Chanel as big as the corridor can be hacked... I hope it can be fixed soon

[@senseiedits642]

Corridor Giving Shoutout to other creators in between is cool

[@johnedwards9388]

I also noticed the clear wall panels vibrated in sinc and changing intensity with a slight delay that matched the Robots feet hitting the floor with varying intensity.

[@DavidBono]

I think one of the biggest thinks that they didn't talk about is Spots interaction with the foam floor. you can see it being deflected and little depressions are left for a few frames when he moves. that is a whole other level of Vellum Sims that I just don't think would be worth doing because of how subtle it is.

[@thatslegit]

another thing is how the humanoid robot ones feet bounces perfectly off the ground when stomping because the floor reacting back into the robot leg and feet, things that no one ever notices in any dance video until you slow it down and close up on a human performer foot and witnessing the third law of motion. a lot in BD's video is damn impossible and people dont believe it because they dont notice newtons 3 laws of motion that they never realistically examine on their own.

[@bullet4g]

you can see it also in the wheeled robots. They are heavy they sink in the foam.

[@themutantrat7417]

Holy cow you guys got the explanation of the mechanics on how the robot is able to courtyograph it's movements perfectly.

[@mikehall473]

This video is clearly fake. The lighting is off, the character models look like they come from uncanny valley and Wren is constantly clipping with his chair.

[@TheGentooGamer]

Omg lol, u got me till you said Wren!!

[@psychopathicazula6344]

"u can't argue with fools, they will never understand" mark these words, u hopeless individual

[@psychopathicazula6344]

@@nilakshanaskar3326 thanks for pointing it out, theres corruption everywhere

[@hacker1oo173]

@@psychopathicazula6344 dude it was a joke

[@Vik1919]

@@hacker1oo173 He was being hypocritical, I guess.

[@darraghtalorgan1905]

Not only the contact shadows and the clipping issues of the feet, but the fact that the ground itself is pliable depending on how much weight and downward force there is applied. The ground indents and it does it with the toe tips too while dancing. I think the biggest thing debunking it is the amount of money it would have cost for something, that if it's fake, would potentially lose business for them. They build robots afterall, not do CG for others.

[@borgulonius3016]

would definitely cost them more to make fake then real

[@zee9709]

@@borgulonius3016 no dude, the r&d cost of research years and years for that robot to happen is tremendous

[@Jesse-Karn]

Literally the same argument I used for the "fake" moon landing

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

@@zee9709 Boston Dynamics is worth about 1.1 billion. The cost of CGI for all the different videos of this robot (there are dozens to hundreds totalling hours of footage) would be more expensive than any Hollywood Blockbuster. And it would make them no money.

[@fakename287]

@@ZeteticPhilosopher to add to your point, Marvel Studios (and Disney as a whole) are worth hundreds of times more, and even they have gotten CGI wrong before (Thanos' hand clipping in Avengers Endgame, which was their biggest movie to date) and CGI is literally their job So how can anyone expect Boston Dynamics to do a better job than them?

[@RyderSpearmann]

One of the "give-aways" that the BD footage is real is that there are motion artifacts that come with hydraulic and other mechanical motion systems that are not present in people... they are quite unnatural and these systems would have to be physically modeled in *detail*, and somehow laid over mocap to accomplish them... when a hydraulic valve actuates and a joint is hydraulically shocked... that can be easily seen. A *very* good CG artist with a LOT of study and time to spend might sort of recreate these mechanical artifacts, but it would be daunting. It was great seeing the actor TRY to move mechanically... and fail :) (but a great effort, we would agree). Humans are soft, and simply can't replicate such rigid shocks inside their bodies.

[@ToeCutter0]

I focused on the padded floor, but I totally understand your comments here. The arms and legs of the robot have that mechanical appearance to them. Electric or hydraulic actuators appear very mechanical, as they lack the smooth, “analog” motion of biological muscle. Mech actuators extend & retract quickly. They accelerate, decelerate and stop with quite a bit of inertial motion, where as people tend to move far more smoothly than machines (for obvious reasons). I this strange movement fires off some “uncanny valley” in most folks. I remember watching a movie called “Saturn 3” when I was kid. The monster of the movie was a HUGE robot, probably over 2 meters on set. It was an animatronic robot and it scared the hell out of me when I was young bc it’s movements were so damn bizarre?! It had no head, only a pair of “eyes” on a stalk and looked a lot like a BD Atlas now that I think of it. There was just something about the unhuman movement that added to the fear. I’ve seen the movie since, and it’s not so scary. It’s pretty bad though! Still, the guys that did the film had a hunch what a robot might look like 40+ years into the future and they weren’t that far off.

[@adamtennant4936]

Yeah, getting all the subtleties of that animation spot on would be almost impossible.

[@VuLamDang]

generally if you're familiar with real world mechatronics system, you will notice stuff life jerking and acceleration associate with positional control system that not appear (in general) in CGI robots (Star wars prequel for example)

[@TechyBen]

They did mention it a little. But you are right. It plays a large part. Which is why it's really annoying when KZbin messes up keyframes/lags on the compression on a video. :(

[@ZacharyBlubaugh]

This is probably the biggest reason people think it is fake. The robot is humanoid in shape so you think it should move exactly like a human. And so the brain thinks those little differences are because it's faked.

[@NCozy]

My favorite channel micro strategy

[@Cocobean_513]

Lol

[@Buphido]

I may not be a cg artist but I‘m a computer science student currently taking a module on graphics and visualisation. Our professor repeatedly reinforced to us that all light effects are nothing more than approximations, because the real interactions between light and matter are so infinitely intricate that we might not ever be able to simulate them to 100% accuracy simply from a lack of procrssing power. Seeing the light effects in the Boston Dynamics video (leaving aside that I also heard a module on robotics and consider this to be plausible from that standpoint as well) it should be abundantly clear that this cannot be an animation.

[@waron4fun597]

Like you could certainly get the lighting down for the most part… for a video, so your point still stands as you would need to make the entire environment CG which would be too large an undertaking for Boston Dynamics to the point it would be as expensive if not more expensive then the research and development that went into Atlas

[@tuluppampam]

Remember that you'll never be able to truly simulate light without a quantum computer because most of what light does comes from the weirdness of quantum physics

[@gabrielc7861]

@@tuluppampam quantum computers are called that by using super positioning, not because they calculate quantum mechanics.

[@fernandoferreira6293]

Your Professor is wrong. His failure is to not detect the incrementally closer to obvious engineering fact that the black box we call nature is nothing else (from all practical standpoints) than the (by definition) largest computer possible. The cat is never out of the box whether alive or dead; but it makes no difference. We will compute just about anything. We just need to build a much more refined modem.

[@unclesam997]

As someone who is a professional in the field, you either misunderstood your prof, or your prof downplayed what an approximation is (or maybe just doesn't know himself). Yes there's always some epsilon band that's going to separate the perfect lighting calculation from the real world physics, but we're so good now that it's pretty much irrelevant. The lighting effects in this video are not at all impressive.

[@roob4385]

I actually had the chance to see one of the robot dogs in person and I can confirm that their video was 100% real just based on the dog alone. Not a single doubt

[@biohazard8295]

Did you feel uncomfortable at all? Just seeing them move so good makes a bit nervous

[@airplanemaniacgaming7877]

@@biohazard8295 You've seen too many of those movies where AI goes evil.

[@mildly_miffed_man1414]

Did you pet it?

[@spugelo359]

Well, I do believe those bipedal robots are real deal, but your reasoning for that is very wrong. A dog is far easier to keep stable due to having 4 legs. Bipedal animals though? Absolutely nightmare. Making bipedal robot that stable and well balanced has to be harder than making a human that has never walked a tightrope, cross it without falling even once. Just for that reason seeing the doggies wouldn't tell much about the bipedal robots, since the doggos could work fine but bipedals still falling over constantly. Keyword... could (based on the evidence presented by you, not on other evidence provided by other people)

[@doe-dw9lo]

​@@spugelo359 expert knowledge : "it's too hard" , essentially. Well you certainly didn't need to write a paragraph to say all that.

[@automatic_sandwich]

I remember the days when Wrens shirt was brand new, now you can barely see the beat saber blocks. Wow how time passes

[@_thomas1031]

OMG! I just noticed that😭

[@SirWrender]

hahaha yeahhhhhhh I miss when it was a freshy

[@scorpionjimmy8734]

Oh yeah, wow

[@ianrennebohm8294]

I've lost count of how many channels got hacked into this "Micro Strategy" Garbage

[@joshuasell9607]

Gotta love the fact that Corridor is defending the new technology and pointing out just how awesome it all is

[@soviut303]

The interaction between the feet squishing the foam mats, and the mats retaining that squished area is an excellent indicator that this is real given the assumption that the background is real. Yes, it _could_ be simulated, but at that point, Boston Dynamics has spent more money faking a video than building their actual robots.

[@brodriguez11000]

The line between fakery and real will be an economic one.

[@soup6823]

There comes a point in time where you just gotta build the damn robot.

[@TheSearchForTruth88]

It's fake.

[@soup6823]

@@TheSearchForTruth88 your sex life

[@soup6823]

@@TheSearchForTruth88 Ay, btw i see you’re a man of culture. And a fat troll. Btw, Artemis’s voice actor sounds like a 40 year old single and divorced mother who smokes 4 packs daily. Can’t change my mind.

[@somekindofmonster3613]

The fact that we are at the level which we have to convince people what's real and what's CGI is amazing

[@MrSparkhead]

...and scary, since there are way to many people who arent capable of telling the difference

[@pwnstoohard]

ya if you have to pay youtubers to make "its real and totally not fake" videos, its probably fake, no one is saying M1A1 abrams tanks are fake because theyre all over the middle east blowing shit up

[@FemboiMuffin]

Oof I almost unsubscribed because I thought it was one of those scamming channels and I subscribed to them by accident, but then I checked! Damn hackers, your videos are amazing

[@tekkadawn6685]

Bro they got LilNasX too

[@FemboiMuffin]

@@tekkadawn6685 the same hackers?!

[@ShorterThantheEasel]

If anything, the fact that so many people thought it was faked just goes to show how far the technology in robotics has come and it's so fascinating and crazy to see how fluid a lot of the movements have become. It feels like it wasn't too long ago that robots had much stiffer movements with a lot more limitations.

[@Crazy_Diamond_75]

Yeah I remember the first Boston Dynamics videos from several years ago. Like, at that point it was amazing that they could even get robots that stood on LEGS while staying balanced.

[@vibaj16]

and it shows how far CGI has come, that people think it's possible that this is CGI

[@imapigeonyoupeasant1489]

And all credit goes to Boston Dynamics. Incredible work from them.

[@forgetfuldullahan5468]

My guess? It's hitting to close to the Uncanny Valley and people just don't want to accept that something so distinctly not human, could move like a human flawlessly. Like yeah we see robots do robotic tasts flawlessly all the time, but there's something so human about dancing, that some people don't like when things that aren't human act like they are.

[@urahara64360]

That's what I think is going on. It's a manifestation of our uncanny sense. The fake one feels more real because it's fully based on human movements but these robots have their own way that they were designed to move.

[@surfersilver6610]

" people don't like when things that aren't human act like they are." This explains why I always hated Bugs Bunny...and most cartoons. Oh and Mark Zuckerberg.

[@twaggytheatricks4960]

@@surfersilver6610 Oh, you _absolutely_ got it. Now, I love cartoons so I find that a shame, but I _totally get_ why you'd hate Bugs Bunny/most cartoons for that reason. The uncanny sense is an issue I legit wouldn't want to subject you to for that reason. Also, have a Like for that Mark Zuckerberg burn. Made my day. XD

[@jchou17]

I would imagine part of the reason why Boss Town "looks real" and Boston Dynamics "looks fake" is, ironically, the origins of motion in Boss Town is human, and therefore, familiar, while the origins of motion in Boston Dynamics is machine, so it looks unnatural and artificial

[@cykeok3525]

That's a good observation.. Boss Town is the movement of a real human mocapped, whereas the Boston Dynamics video shows movement of AI-controlled mechanical robots. So in a different sense, Boss Town is real, and Boston is fake, and it could be triggering that subconscious sensation in a lot of people.. but people don't realize specifically what their subconscious is really telling them!

[@ricksmith3045]

Even more ironic is that the Boss Town robot videos had basis in the earlier Boston Dynamics videos with the pushing and hitting of the robots while the robots are performing some task or function.

[@shardinhand1243]

its so wonderufl how far robotics has come since my dear dads day, blows mine and his minds

[@Nerdnumberone]

A big difference is that in Bosstown Dynamics Clint was moving how humans believe robots should move (with a bit of extra emotion/slapstick). Meanwhile, the Boston Dynamics video, they were trying to show off how coordinated and perfectly they could make their robots move. Dancing CGI robots have been done before, but dancing real robots with that kind of ability have not. If one doesn't have an eye for clipping, shadows, reflections, etc and saw the video full-speed on a phone screen, they probably wouldn't be able to differentiate this from a CGI render made similar to it. I am curious about what you said regarding the center of mass difference and the like. I wonder if a sufficiently skilled stuntman could learn to do flips and other feats of a agility while carrying a weighted backpack that shifts his center of mass to fit this robot (or some other other creature). Maybe even add stilts or arm mechanisms to change body proportions somewhat. Of course this is probably impractical for a movie since few people would notice this sort of thing and making stunts harder for your stuntmen isn't something you want to do without a good reason.

[@areeshalam2230]

Best Graphic Designer Maybe And The Funniest Video Ever Made With This Type Of Content Just Watch Once And I Am 95% Sure That You Will Love It And Will Subscribe The Channel kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmPNoWCBqK-ckJo

[@jeremyortiz2927]

There's an interesting parallel here: Experts, in their field, debunking those that "did their own research" on a topic the naysayers think they know.

[@BigNater]

Huh, this sounds familiar but I can’t jab a needle into what it is

[@psykobob222]

You've laid it out flat, but I can't see what on Earth you might be eluding to...

[@sqlevolicious]

I'd say this shoots for the moon, but I'm not sure we are there yet.....

[@NotEvenSmoozed]

Does their 2 min shill for a garbage VPN hurt their credibility?

[@Hhhh22222-w]

Basically all modern journalism and media in a nutshell

[@Cinemug]

Yet another reason to not underestimate practical effects lol

[@Nugcon]

this is technically practical effects

[@eyeris5812]

Eh. This kinda shows that you could have pratical effects and people would still think it's CGI

[@rayhan4502]

@@eyeris5812 Yea

[@EricBarthDev]

The surface shading and lighting models are ALWAYS the first giveaway to the trained CG eye.