Having a hard time believing this is full CG. I think I see some faceting on some of the cylinders, but other than that…
Wondering if there are other aspects of the image that are giveaways that it’s CG(?)
Wow, that’s impressive!
I agree that only the cylindrical object in the hand of the little guy in the second image tells you that it’s CG.
Now I want to find that Lego, I should have it at home in some old box 
If you think the lego is impressive (which of course is), then look at Marek Denko’s chess set: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/582Kgw
Both artworks linked above are super impressive but,
I instantly know something is CGI because they all share very similar look I named “High Quality Vintage”
- Noisy (which is photorealistic), but noisy unlike old high-tech film cameras, new cheap hipster replicas, cellphones, or DSLRs/SLRs. No camera before or today produced this kind of look.
The noise imho either has to be done correctly with far more unregularity and further image artifacts if it is supposed to simulate old film, or have smeared look of modern demoisacing algorithm from digital sensors.
The instant giveaway for me is DOF in both cases. Attaching some crops, hope I won’t get sued for a billion dollars.
Regarding the noise pattern - the one in Marek Denko’s shots actually reminds me of Fujifilm noise, which actually does have an “analog camera” feeling. If it wan’t for DOF, I probably wouldn’t be sure if that’s a render.
Yes, but Fujifilm film didn’t give you ultra-sharp crystal clear 4K image with fabulous microcontrast and details :- ), even if you could scan such clarity potentially (you can scan it 1200 DPI but doesn’t mean the detail is truly there).
I have plenty of Kodak photos from childhood from pretty high end camera at that time and the look is just imcompatible with how renderings look nowadays.
Haha, that’s a good name for it
Very impressive work indeed. The instant giveaway I see is the huge amount of chromatic abberation in the first shot.