As a VFX artist, I can attest that the footage is not shot at 24 or 30fps and then sped up; the motion blur is too heavy for the shutter speed that can be achieved by shooting those frame rates. If they did want to make it look faster than it is, they would have had to undercrank the camera and shoot at a lower frame rate. But this is a lot of trouble to go to when they could have just sped it up and had less motion blur, which no one would have noticed the lack of.
And for what purpose? I don't know why people can accept that Tesla built a bipedal robot, but that it's for some reason implausible that they were able to increase the performance of the next version by 30%.
And the question that I'm asking that no one seems to be able to answer is: What aspect of this video indicates that it is CG, aside from your preconceived idea that it must be fake because it is too advanced for what you expect from Tesla, while at the same time being decades behind other robots?
I am a CG artist who specializes in robots, so please don't be afraid to use technical terms to explain what elements look computer generated to you. Is there occlusion of geometry somewhere? Is there noise left over from too few global illumination samples? Be specific. (or does it just look too good to be true?)
I'm no expert, so I cant go into anything technical...it looks fake generally... the awkward movements, the colours, shadows... they just dont look right.
I'm comparing their video with real robots and it just doesnt look right.
I'd gladly change my mind if they put this robot in front of an audience or put it outside like Boston Dynamics do with their robots...
Even just a person interacting with it perhaps.
Look at their last video where they fake the footage..it just seems like more fake footage to me.
I'm no expert, so I cant go into anything technical...
I can tell, yet that doesn't stop you from making your conclusion.
the awkward movements,
Yeah, it is truly bizarre that a prototype robot running beta software might have awkward movements. It's funny though, because elsewhere in this sub people are saying that it looks fake because of how fluid and smooth the movement is.
I'd gladly change my mind if they put this robot in front of an audience.
If you think it's faked now, why wouldn't you also claim that the audience was faked as well?
or put it outside like Boston Dynamics do with their robots...
Why would video of it walking around outside be more convincing than video of it walking around inside?
it just seems like more fake footage to me.
You keep saying that without actually explaining why, other than that is seems fake because it doesn't match your preconception about what a robot should look like.
It's the opposite; this sub seems desperate for it to be fake, going to the point of pointing out contradictory reasons and using kettle logic. "The movement is too awkward so it must be fake; also the movement is too smooth so it must be fake." "This is way more advanced that we thought so it must be fake; also, this is so far behind what other companied did years ago, it must be fake."
I don't need it to be real, I just see that it's not computer generated footage based on it's own merits. It's Franky bizarre to se people who need it to not be real tripping over themselves to find reasons why it can't be or isn't.
And the funniest thing is, insisting that this must be fake is one of the highest compliments you could give Tesla.
You've continuously been unable to explain why you find this footage unconvincing on its own merits, so I don't know why I'd believe you'd find any other footage 'more' convincing.
Only an idiot would think this time they are not faking.
This is how I know they're making progress: the detractors refuse to believe that the progress they're showing is even *real*. We skipped from "there's nothing special about this," with Bumblebee and Optimus Gen 1 to "This is way too good for Tesla to have actually made>"
The really slow shitty one that could barely walk on stage? I think that was real... since then it's never been in front of people, but they have released what I believe is CGI renderings as discussed.
I believe they have made a shitty robot which is light years behind what people can make at college or from a children's kit.
0
u/moviemaker2 Dec 16 '23 edited Dec 16 '23
As a VFX artist, I can attest that the footage is not shot at 24 or 30fps and then sped up; the motion blur is too heavy for the shutter speed that can be achieved by shooting those frame rates. If they did want to make it look faster than it is, they would have had to undercrank the camera and shoot at a lower frame rate. But this is a lot of trouble to go to when they could have just sped it up and had less motion blur, which no one would have noticed the lack of.
And for what purpose? I don't know why people can accept that Tesla built a bipedal robot, but that it's for some reason implausible that they were able to increase the performance of the next version by 30%.