✕
Deepfake detected
First analyzed Apr 18, 2026, 8:33 PM
· authenticity score 15/100
#310
AI confidence
95%
Risk level: critical
Post-processing
Detected
composite
Findings
- The presence of a 'VFX' watermark (visible in the bottom right corner of the original image) is a definitive indicator that extensive visual effects, compositing, or digital manipulation have been applied.
- The overall aesthetic is highly polished and cinematic, characteristic of professional production involving significant post-processing and possibly CGI integration.
- The robot is either a highly realistic CGI element seamlessly composited into a real photographic scene or a very sophisticated practical effect that has been heavily integrated with post-production.
- The human subject's skin appears quite smooth, and his teeth are uniformly white, suggesting potential beauty retouching or a high degree of processing to achieve a 'perfected' look.
- Despite the polished appearance, the text on the man's uniform ('A.R.G SHIELD') is perfectly legible and coherent, which is atypical for purely AI-generated images (especially in earlier models), suggesting a real photographic base for the human and environment.
- The consistent lighting and shadow direction across both the human subject, the robot, and the background indicate careful compositing and color grading to achieve a unified scene.
Recommendation
This image is a heavily manipulated composite, likely combining real photography with advanced visual effects (VFX) such as CGI elements and extensive post-production. It is not an unmodified original photo and falls under the 'DEEPFAKE/FACE-SWAP' category due to the digital compositing of elements, or at a minimum, heavily 'POST-PROCESSED' with significant digital artistry. The 'VFX' watermark is the strongest evidence of deliberate manipulation.
Content hash (SHA-256)
eb4661d36a9b9607f58cc90a5dbb0add010d2f124cf1c59e967c07b8b732fe0f
This is a deepfake (15/100 authenticity). AI-generated or AI-altered.
This is an independent check — not legal proof, but a useful second opinion. Anyone can re-run it: same file in,
same answer out.
·