Wow, those pixels and that frame rate.

Does anyone remember the early days of bots in FPS games? I'm not impressed by the bot winning because of those early FPS bots.

Walk round a corner with an old fashioned Quake 1 bot? BAM you're dead as soon as a pixel of your head appears (headshots existed in QTF); you probably won't even see the bot because of your refresh rate.

The learning is incredibly impressive, but as someone said earlier the impressive thing would be filling in as a player in a 5v5, or maybe a team of them. I'd always expect a bot to win a duel of reactions unless they are programmed to miss. The bot makes its decisions and performs them instantly, so if you make better decisions than it, they still must be better enough that you can beat that huge speed advantage.

As the former owner of a DLP rear projection TV, I can say that the Ti DLP chips will not last 11 years before some of the tiny mirror elements begin to fail (on a TV, it would show up as a stuck-on white pixel).

Sorry to be a kill-joy, but can't say that I would promote this - really ripping the sn*t out of the landscape - their pixelating out the faces of the riders makes me wonder whether they had the permission of the landowners whose property they were tearing around on....

im guessing there is a video in that mess of pixels.

Can you point out to me the pixels in question?

I kind of had the opposite reaction, although I only watch streams of people playing BF1, didn't actually personally play it. Whereas I have some 150 hours in Overwatch right now.

BF1 and the series in general puts me off since it has so much down time. So much time seems to be spent just looking for someone to shoot or aiming at at a few tiny pixels miles away. Whereas Overwatch has familiar map choke points and if someone flanks you, it's almost certainly your fault for not paying attention.

Also Overwatch just offers so much in variety of play styles. I have a core of maybe 5 heroes I'm good at, but there's at least half the roster I haven't even seriously tried playing. Haven't even tried to get good at Hanzo's bow or Junkrat's remote jumps. BF offers the close quarters, rifle, sniper, vehicle and plane gameplay I've seen too much of already.

you can see it here... looks "as advertised"

https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/styles/xlarge/public/article_images/2016/10/google-pixel-hardware-16.jpg?itok=wsP6LdE6

@dannym3141 Yes, it does have a lot to do with people having to scoot around the back of the camera. It can take a bit of time to choreograph all the actor blocking and camera movements. In this piece there was no dialogue or field sound captured, so it wasn't as difficult as some of the projects I remember crewing on when I was in school a hundred years ago.

Hahaha, it does kinda look like it is 35 pixels, sorry about the poor quality of the image. I found this on Youtube, and I think the transfer from film to video might not have been of the highest quality. Not sure though. I added the bit about the difficulty a single-shot like this is to get in the can.

I really like the ending.

Perhaps someone could clear up my ignorance, but what is so hard to pull this 2 min scene off in a single take? Is it because people have to scoot around the back of the camera and re-appear in character?

Also does 35mm refer to the size of the pixels in the video? Quality really lets it down, which seems strange they'd talk about the difficulty of producing it but not bother to spend more than 10 minutes uploading the video.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Planck length = universe's pixel resolution. It's HD.

It would've been less annoying if he pixelated it, but maybe he's using software that doesn't make that easy (or just doesn't know how).

http://mikeshouts.com/deal-with-it-pixelated-sunglasses/

Stunning that we're so up and close to it. Still, one pixel does not make a "feature". It's like saying you can make out someone's face when their head is a grey box.