I remember when this "Guy makes a huge humanoid robot from a Mini Cooper" website came online, he had several videos of it on "his site." I was part of
a discussion of it on Usenet - many said it was CGI, some others said it was real. I could tell it was fake because of the "stop test" video that you can see near the end of this video, at about 4:10 into it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vm6p2SAPzI
In that scene the robot is on the left of the car, and the car would have swerved to the left (just as if only the left-side brakes were working) had the robot been actually stopping the car. You can also see the back of the vehicle (especially the back window) drop down as it comes to a complete stop, indicating it's the brakes and not the robot stopping it.
The website is mentioned throughout the video, but is no longer up. Here's what it looked like, though the links to the videos appear to not work (but these are problably available elsewhere):
http://web.archive.org/web/20051222083805/www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/index.html
The whole thing appears to have been put on by the company to promote their Cooper "Mini" car.
Fantastic graphics. Anyone could fake action and place it in a CCTV recording to cover up a crime - and fool anyone with that sort of animation.
Not experts, I'm sure - "photoshopped" (woops, I verbalized a brand name) still images fool lots of us, but experts have many techniques to know when a still picture is doctored (see the thread about that strange creature "found" on the shore at Montauk), and I have no doubt there are many telltale marks in CGI.
INterestingly enough,
this technology could invalidate video tape evidence. You catch someone committing a crime on tape, defense attorney cites that you altered the tape to incriminate his client.
The future is now. Can't believe it.
Mel...
I have no doubt experts CAN detect, through various means I might not know about (and perhaps a few I do, as in the Cooper Mini robot video), whether a scene is real or CGI generated.
This is cool and will make for some wild movies and shows but acting is such a talent. Each actor approaches a role with their own flare and finesse. A group of programmers and directors couldn't make a multitude of distinctive individuals to fill entire movie. They wouldn't have, say Dennis Hopper's energetic splashes or Harrison Ford's cocky swagger down like the originals. They can mimic it but it wouldn't be the same. I think those things wuold get lost in the translation.
No doubt you're right. I'm not much of a judge of acting abilities nor a study of specific actors (I don't watch a lot of movies) so I'd likely be fooled, but certainly serious fans of a popular actor would see the CGI as a caricature of the actor rather than the actor himself.
And even CGI movies with "unknown actors" will have their faults that many movie fans will detect. There will surely be many ways to tell, but these will be evaluated, measured and corrected, and even better CGI movies will later be made.
Things could get interesting in another decade or two, as in having any movie ever made (or one written just to your specifications) with you naming the actor (and age, of course) for every role, created for you for about $10 pay-per-view. I can see these "consumer-specified" movies put on Youtube (Youscreen?) with the more popular ones paying royalties to the consumer-creators. And whoever creates this consumers-make-their-own-movies system will become the richest person in the world.
Now I only need to write this as fiction (but wait, it's already fiction, I've just got to hurry before it comes true) and find a market for it.