New Eulerian Video Magnification technology applied to Alien Interview Video. What do you

I posted this video in the original thread. It's also one of the first videos that came to my mind. I wasn't able to get the software working unfortunately. Nice work on this; it's very cool!

reply to post by LeviWardrobe


Hi,

I would like to thank you for your observance and input. I did indeed use the wrong settings. See below the analysis of the video with color magnification, using your specified settings. Turns out the video doesn't seem to be compatible with this new technology (the humans entering the scene, similar to the alien, show no signs of a pulse).

New analysis:

I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm (like you) new to this software and didn't understand it well enough to properly use it. Unfortunately definitive proof regarding the authenticity of this video will still remain (seemingly) elusive.

I'm not sure what to think here. The right-hand screen shows much more modulation occurring in the monitor screen at the lower right background, than it does on the left-hand screen. I need to keep looking.

>>
undetectable color variations as signs of a pulse and (facial) motions.
>>

Unlike as in the demo video of those who came up with this technology, in YOUR video I don't see color/brightness variations and pulsing from blood inside a body. (I have to give you that, the idea is great tho since it can be used to see whether someone uses a costume/mask etc.)

In your video I only see those color changes from the lighting/shadows, from the *external light* and shadows on the head.

reply to post by Cerdofuego


You didn't waste anyone's time. I didn't mean to be brash. Now you've learned something about the software. Just get familiar with the different settings and keep on trucking!

I'm not seeing this as proving anything, really. First of all the video is of poor quality. It's unclear and murky, and always has been. Secondly, this "technique" adds a mottled quality to the overall video, but that isn't confined to the face of the alien. It's all over the entire film, including areas that are totally dark. The face is just a small part of the film and the mottling covers he face in about the same proportion as it does the rest of the film, in the same way.

In other words, I don't think it shows what you think it shows.

Cerdofuego
Hello ATS,

I just recently came across the tread that promoted a radial new way to look at and analyse old video material, with which one is able to see previously undetectable color variations as signs of a pulse and (facial) motions. Thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I immediately knew to which video I wanted to apply this new technology first. The supposed Alien Interview video from Area 51 has always intrigued me massively and I decided I wanted to know if the face of the Alien would remain without micro-variations in color (a sure sign the video is faked) or if some kind of pulse (heartbeat) could be detected. When I finished I was amazed by the result. I think this new analysis shows that the alien face IS NOT A LIFELESS OBJECT! One can clearly identify variations in color-intensity that point to a living being.

NO it doesn't point to a living object it points to a POOR QUALITY YOUTUBE VIDEO so your assumption is wrong , I mentioned this on the original thread that the wrong assumptions of what could be done with this would be made by members on here so well done for proving my point!

reply to post by wmd_2008


I think we're going to need a sticky or something, just to explain how to properly use the software and what its limits are. I expect there to be a large influx of videos in the UFO/Paranormal/Cryptid forums.

DarthImpaler
reply to post by Cerdofuego

 

Any 'pulsing' appears to correspond directly with the movement of the head to the directional light source.

Yes every pulse of colour is in time with the head moving forward and backwards into and out of the light.

The video is a total fake.

reply to post by Cerdofuego


Thank you
This is the 1st post I've seen in quite some time that has me chomping at the bit to watch.
Watching now. Thanks again!

**Watched, real or not, (it looked the same) BUT it was still fun! I'm quite interested in the Eulerian magnification and how it works. The technology could change many perceptions. I look forward to it's many possible uses.

For everyone that's trashing the OP's attempt to see if this video is legit or not, what have YOU attempted to debunk or verify the videos legitimacy, other then saying 'it's fake'?
OP, great job IMHO, I'd love to see if anyone can lighten the video, as a matter of fact, I might do that myself tonight when I get home in primere pro

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering about something here:

What do you do if the alien has no moving facial features....because instead of skin, they have an exoskeleton?

What if the alien does not have a cardiovascular system with circulating fluid? (no pulse).

Just curious.

reply to post by eriktheawful

That's a good point.
Though we don't know what alien life looks like, we have to assume that science of biology in advanced organisms is pretty much the same through out the universe.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

That's a good point.
Though we don't know what alien life looks like, we have to assume that science of biology in advanced organisms is pretty much the same through out the universe.

Why?

Just look right here on Earth.

Animal based life has a circulartory system because other parts of the body needs oxygen, and that is how it's delivered.

But...plant life doesn't have a beating heart....no pulse.

Think about different kinds of insects that we have, that have exoskeletons.....they don't have facial features that change (IE they don't smile, grin, frown, etc).

Now imagine life from other worlds out there that have different base pairs of DNA than we do....the idea can be astounding.

I was just wondering why any one thought that software designed around human biology should work on things that might not be human so to speak.

I've lost count of the amount of times that people here at ATS love to scream and shout that there could be alien life on other worlds (which I believe in too), but that we should be looking for life OTHER than as we know it.

Nothing really says that their biology has to follow our biology. I would think it would to be successful since it's been so successful here on Earth with all the life we have.

But then again, the universe is a big place.

There's one thing, well maybe a couple. While I think this system will be something the medical world could use for starters, I listened to what the creator of the system was saying, and that was he said the system works, even when make-up is being used, that is a bit unlucky for the OP if, and only if the alien is an actor, and obviously under make-up, because the same effect would be there as it would with a real alien, if you see what I mean, actor/alien, makes no difference.

The baby in the cot video is remarkable, where they exaggerate unseen movement, the speculation being is the baby breathing at all, when the process is done there is no doubt whatsoever, that's a slightly different application than here though.

This not to take away from the OP's work though.

Theres are the tips from MIT on using this video enhancement

- Minimize extraneous motion. Put the camera on a tripod. If appropriate, provide support for your subject (e.g. hand on a table, stable chair).
- Minimize image noise. Use a camera with a good sensor, make sure there is enough light.
- Record in the highest spatial resolution possible and have the subject occupy most of the frame. The more pixels covering the object of interest - the better the signal you would be able to extract.
- If possible, record/store your video uncompressed. Codecs that compress frames independently (e.g. Motion JPEG) are usually preferable over codecs exploiting inter-frame redundancy (e.g. H.264) that, under some settings, can introduce compression-related temporal signals to the video.

So as far as i can see you are using :
- Low resolution.
- Low quality.
- 3rd hand non digital video.
- Compressed CODEC.
- On an unstable subject .
- That does not occupy most of the frame.
- In a darkened room.

breaks every single requirement set by MIT to be able to get workable results using this system.

Sorry OP but what you produced is not showing reliable results and using any low quality youtube video will be just as bad.

LeviWardrobe
A pulse can only be detected on the skin in the right conditions. Lighting, resolution, color depth, contrast etc are all extremely important.

Please post your settings, as I am very familiar with this software and you appear to have ran this video through motion magnification, not color magnification. Color magnification is what would show a pulse. All we are seeing in this video is the trails and echoes of motion.

Edit: Yeah, your settings are definitely off. Even if you had done it right, I'd be skeptical of any results because of the quality of the video. This isn't some one size fits all miracle machine, and you can't expect it to give you good results with any video. The lighting is terrible, the subject is far away, and possibly behind glass. This software is awesome, and I've been using it for a few days... but it won't do miracles. It requires controlled condition if you expect decent results. You can't just feed any video through it.

edit on 22-3-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)

Edit2: If you wish to do it anyways, might as well do it right.

Try these settings

30 color 140/60 160/60 150 ideal 1 6

edit on 22-3-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)

I have to laugh my ass off at this... Look at the two areas quoted in blue...

You know the software enough to tell this guy he's doing it wrong because of all of your two days of experience...lol

Jaden

is'nt the alien in the OP video behind one pane of glass, if not two?
So would this software be capable of detecting a pulse through glass?

Masterjaden

I have to laugh my ass off at this... Look at the two areas quoted in blue...

You know the software enough to tell this guy he's doing it wrong because of all of your two days of experience...lol

Jaden

He's actually correct, The system is best served on a set-up recording on a subject, as a poster above you advised, but it still works on prerecorded stuff, just that the better the quality is a more desireable thing.

SecretKnowledge
is'nt the alien in the OP video behind one pane of glass, if not two?
So would this software be capable of detecting a pulse through glass?

I don't see why not, for either application, the main point from what MIT is saying, is that the best results would be from something constructed, start to finish and using the system in the construction. That's only now, I see a mind boggling use of applications if it becomes available in realtime, or almost realtime just by pointing a camera.