> Most (tech savvy) people think that they can smell CGI from a mile away
This is dependent on how much physics is going on in the scene, and how good the person's intuitive sense of physics is. I think a lot of that's been damaged by seeing bad CGI in films. One disturbing thing I've noticed is that before widespread CGI, animator's sense of physics seemed to be getting better as animation technique developed. Now, it seems to be getting worse.
But besides the various problems, the physics of the bird is just flat-out wrong. When birds of prey snatch something off the ground, they are relying on having enough momentum, such that after the snatch, they still have forward motion to maintain airspeed. The portrayed bird in the video doesn't have any forward motion just after the snatch. No forward motion means no lift. There's nothing holding it up. The flapping wings are horizontally oriented and flapping vertically, so they're primarily thrusting forwards. (Birds with little to no forward motion can flap their wings to thrust away from the ground, but then their wings are oriented vertically, and the flapping is horizontal.) I can only assume the animators think "levitation rays" come off the bottom of the wings.
That's egregious, but it's what passes for "good" CG nowadays. Then you have the totally execrable stuff in Hollywood blockbusters. (Star Wars ep. 1-3)
Grossly exaggerated physics in movies are nothing new though. Before CGI, explosions were still silly puffy balls of fire, and people still survived them by jumping away from them in slow motion.
And before CGI, hoaxes were still terrible, yet people bought into them. I mean, look at the Cottingley Fairies from the early 20th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies. The bar for fooling laymen just isn't that high, and never has been.
As for Hollywood blockbusters, it really varies a lot from movie to movie. Also, the Star Wars prequels are nearly 8-14 years old, so they're not the greatest examples of modern CGI.
This is dependent on how much physics is going on in the scene, and how good the person's intuitive sense of physics is. I think a lot of that's been damaged by seeing bad CGI in films. One disturbing thing I've noticed is that before widespread CGI, animator's sense of physics seemed to be getting better as animation technique developed. Now, it seems to be getting worse.
This hoax was supposed to be "good" CG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B61_4NCebWc
But besides the various problems, the physics of the bird is just flat-out wrong. When birds of prey snatch something off the ground, they are relying on having enough momentum, such that after the snatch, they still have forward motion to maintain airspeed. The portrayed bird in the video doesn't have any forward motion just after the snatch. No forward motion means no lift. There's nothing holding it up. The flapping wings are horizontally oriented and flapping vertically, so they're primarily thrusting forwards. (Birds with little to no forward motion can flap their wings to thrust away from the ground, but then their wings are oriented vertically, and the flapping is horizontal.) I can only assume the animators think "levitation rays" come off the bottom of the wings.
That's egregious, but it's what passes for "good" CG nowadays. Then you have the totally execrable stuff in Hollywood blockbusters. (Star Wars ep. 1-3)