I know it's practically cliche to say so these days, but that picture is giving strong AI vibes. Look at the joints between the big beams. If you needed beams that large to hold up a building, you wouldn't cut them in the middle like that. And you wouldn't have those gaps.
Plus, all the text on the page is future tense, talking about what the super wood beams will be able to do.
So I don't know how much that picture really represents what the wood will look like.
There are lots of posts from them on the internet image search...and it seems they've gone to a number of industry conferences with samples.
I agree, that from a PR perspective, their pictures are too polished. They should show a piece in a less polished format.
wow that image is pretty bad; all sorts of weird inconsistencies in the wood stack that scream AI; I'm ignoring the license gibberish as that could be just removal of identifying info.
Yeah, inspecting the picture closely there are at least 20 to 30 things that immediately stand out as "AI did this". There are so many things wrong with those chairs on the right. The wood support beams are just not right, nobody would build like this.
But I’m not sure if it a real photo or some sort of… analogy? Under “INTRODUCING SUPERWOOD: THE NEXT GENERATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS,” we can see one piece that looks like an actual piece of wood, and then some other ones that looks like an artificial wood-looking finish wrapped around some core which visually looks metallic (but which, I assume, is actually their engineered wood).
I dunno. I guess “being wood” is more about the ecological impact in this case. If it is replacing steel and it looks ugly, well, a lot of steel looks ugly and then gets covered up.
Plus, all the text on the page is future tense, talking about what the super wood beams will be able to do.
So I don't know how much that picture really represents what the wood will look like.