It was quite obviously either completely rendered, or rendered on top of an actual video. It felt like a plain commercial, with "cgi" added ontop of it for effect. I mean, no one expects little flying transparent windows to pop out the side of their card, do they? Of course not. So I don't think they were doing it surreptitiously, but merely to make a pretty "commercial" to sell their product.
I'm talking about the product itself, not the explanatory popups.
You can actually see it with the naked eye.
Well, sure, but for a device that pushes some technological limits (a responsive touchscreen UI built into a credit card) I think seeing it in action is pretty important. So far all I know is what they want it to be like, which means little to me.
It's super obvious that it would be CGI after reading those specs. They're pretty impossible with current technologies.
somepeople are just butthurt about sth
Sometimes it's necessary to make sure screen contents are legible in a video. You can see someone doing it for the app demo video here: https://medium.com/@djfumberger/lets-make-a-promo-d32e15d574...
That explains how to screencap a real functioning app and composite it on top of real hardware that's otherwise running exactly the same thing. That is not what is going on here.
According to TNW "Plastc didn’t have a prototype for me to see during a meeting" and what they showed was a UI inside of a fake card.
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/10/07/plastc-one-payment-car...
I think the parent's comment still has a valid point. In the app demo it is more a presentation of something that we are presented how it is, the app. When we will download the app we will get what we see in the video, it is pretty and gives a realistic idea of the functionality makes the app pretty, but the app is still the same. On the other hand, the video in op's website is simply a fake as in it's not a real representation of anything concrete. It's a promise, a nice one, but still not concrete or real and we all know that the end product might end up highly different from the promise.
But it also makes it tempting to make the interface appear much better than it actually is. If you're faking it to "make it legible," heck, why not just make it looks really nice as well? Companies like Apple have gotten in trouble for faking their interfaces in advertisements.
Of course it is fake. You can't do this with today's technology, or next years, at least not for $150
Go look at the actual thinness of a credit card.
The battery would have to be 90% of the surface area even with e-ink.
I downloaded it and went frame-by-frame and you can see the card display contents move around with changing margins. It's all CGI.
Not that it's inherently wrong to do simulations, but this is notable because they don't include a "this is a simulation" disclaimer (AFAICS).