That video is actively deceptive in at least one point:
He starts out explaining that current engines lack realistic lighting.
Then he shows scenes with realistic lighting.
He fails to mention that current engines create lighting from mathematical formulas and can be changed easily and on the fly. In fact for many of them it's entirely possible to change the day time in realtime, resulting in changes of lighting direction, intensity, color.
Meanwhile the Euclideon lighting looks realistic because it's rendering camera-recorded images onto voxels, which also means that the lighting cannot be changed at all. It's a static snapshot. In order to get different lighting into the scenes he's shown they'd need to do a different recording at another time of day, and of course completely arbitrary lighting is impossible at anything near that level of quality.
He starts out explaining that current engines lack realistic lighting.
Then he shows scenes with realistic lighting.
He fails to mention that current engines create lighting from mathematical formulas and can be changed easily and on the fly. In fact for many of them it's entirely possible to change the day time in realtime, resulting in changes of lighting direction, intensity, color.
Meanwhile the Euclideon lighting looks realistic because it's rendering camera-recorded images onto voxels, which also means that the lighting cannot be changed at all. It's a static snapshot. In order to get different lighting into the scenes he's shown they'd need to do a different recording at another time of day, and of course completely arbitrary lighting is impossible at anything near that level of quality.