In the Boston video, look how the robots interact with the environment: correct shadows and reflections on the shiny mat; you can see the mat give under the weight of the feet and wheels at times and then relax back into shape afterwards. You see the reflection of the first robot on the big plate glass window. Now compare this to the Corridor guys' fakery: there's little evidence of light interaction from the robot on to the environment other than the shadow of the original guy doing the mocap. As it's balancing on the boxes, look where the feet meet the boxes: there's no contact shadow at all. Similarly, other than the precomputed light being used to illuminate the robot, we see little/no dynamic light from the environment back on to the robot: they throw all these boxes at the robot but never do we see any shadows or reflections of the boxes on its shiny surfaces.
That's the thing about CGI. As you pointed out, it does so much really, really, really well. Like our beloved AXE FX, it wouldn't exist if it weren't so believable. However, I see flaws and inconsistencies in some of the exact things that you pointed out as being the proof that it's real: the opacity in the glass looking outside appear to have elements of global illumination, the two high tension electric poles are overly distorted in some frames which indicates layering, the too perfect lighting indicates something like VRAY was used - but especially the footfalls on the mats and the tiny glimpses of the motion capture of the robots where there doesn't seem to be a mechanical joint.
If this was a competition of pointing out what is right vs what is suspect, right absolutely dominates. I concede that there is so much right about this it's uncanny. But, when you can find just one or two elements that aren't right, it's probably due to layering, editing, video compression, rendering, video plugins - the elements of CGI. But certainly, most of those can also be blamed on the overuse of Final Cut video filters or a plugin like VRAY. Keep in mind that the software needed to do CGI is as attainable and as affordable as a lot of audio plugins or amplifier modeling computers.
Anyway, this same discussion is everywhere on the internet. It's interesting. It's even more interesting that one or two participants on this forum, where we are so invested in the realism of audio modeling, find the suggestion that this video might be CGI so offensive that they're making personal attacks.
In the end, we may never know the truth and that is fine. It doesn't matter. We have seen enough evidence that the robots could easily do this if they were so programmed. After reading interviews with Boston Dynamic's CEO regarding their current mission and the fact that they're not yet profitable, I have a hard time imagining BD wasting engineering brainpower do to do a viral video when there are probably a half dozen companies within a 20 miles radius that could do a decent job with CGI at a fraction of the cost.
Happy New Year!
. Anyway, happy new year to you too!
