> I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious.

I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.

The worst bit about working in CG, or film-making in general, is finding it harder to enjoy films because you are hypersensitized to bad work.

> Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.

This goes for conversation too! My neighbour recently told me about a mutual neighbour who walks 200 miles per day working on his farm. When I explained that this is impossible he said "I'll have to disagree with you there"

>Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content

A related phenomenon is not being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. I find the notion astonishing, and yet lots of people cannot tell the difference.

> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.