posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 11:10 PM
I can prove it's fake in more ways than one.
1: That camera has a rolling shutter which means the image is captured line by line. On fast moving objects this creates rolling shutter artifacts
such as shearing and bending. This object shows zero signs of rolling shutter artifacts meaning it was digitally composited into the video.
Unfortunately After Effects doesn't yet have a plugin that will simulate rolling shutter artifacts...
2: The motion blur is fake and badly so. Looks like a standard motion blur you'd enable in Adobe After Effects, but they bumped up the "samples per
frame" a few notches. The algorithm that applies the color blending of the object with the background is linear, and too perfectly so. In the real
world the blurry part of motion blur is imperfect due to the atmosphere, variations in the background, variations in the camera's sensor, variations
in lighting, and many other variables. It's not just "take RGB value from object minus some Alpha value, and add to RGB value of background" like you
see in the video.
3: The match moving effort was good, but not flawless. For those unfamiliar, in order to make a fake object appear in a real video you must calculate
the motion of the camera by motion tracking the scene, and then apply that motion to the fake object so the object moves with the camera. This is
extremely difficult to do perfectly when the camera has a lot of shake. Fortunately for these hoaxers, the video is on a stable drone with a camera on
a gimbal, so faking this is as easy as it gets. Usually I would just right off any UFO caught on a camera with a gimbal, or a camera that was on a
tripod, simply because it makes it too easy to fake the UFO, but seeing as though gimbals are now very cheap and readily available I would consider
With that said, when you are going to add a fake object to a real video you have to really plan out where in the video your object is going to be in
terms of distance. This is because of the parallax effect - objects in the background move slower than objects in the foreground. In this particular
video, the furthest object is the blue sky in the background with clouds, it moves the slowest out of everything in the scene when the camera shakes
or moves. Second furthest is the mountains in the back, which moves a little faster than the sky, but not by much. Third is the rolling hills in the
middle which moves faster than the mountains. Then you get right in front of the camera where there are some really close trees and bushes, they move
the fastest, etc.. The closer to the camera you get, the faster the objects move when the camera shakes or moves.
If you want to add a fake object to this scene, you can't just motion track any part of the video to apply that too the fake object. You have to
motion track the area of the scene that is at the distance you want the fake object to be. If you want the object to appear in the sky behind the
mountains, you don't want to motion track the rolling hills in front, because the object will move when the hills move, and not when the sky moves, it
would be bouncing around everywhere. So you want to motion track the clouds in the sky, and then apply that motion to the fake object so it appears
to be in the sky.
The same is true if you want to make the object appear closer to the camera, you would motion track a part of the video that is closer to the camera,
not further away, because the motion would not look right. It would break the laws of perspective and motion. The parallax effect would be off.
In this particular video they have made things difficult for themselves - the object is supposed to travel from the background to the foreground. This
creates and interesting problem, as the UFO gets closer to the camera, its relation to the scene should change too. Do they track the background,
foreground, or the middle, or what? I know how this should be done, but I don't think they did it (or they did it incorrectly) from my analysis of the
video. They would have to track all parts of the scene differently and apply it at different distances, or just track the sky and make a 3D path. It
looks like they tracked the sky only. So when the UFO gets close to the camera, particularly when the object appears to bank and turn, there is very
small camera shaking movement that doesn't affect the UFO, which proves the UFO is not really in the scene. I know exactly how much that UFO should
have moved based on the ground it is above, but it moved only the amount the sky moved. So its proof of a fake composited object. I could make a
video that points this out, but the shake is so small it would just not be believed by the uninitiated.
The main problem stems from motion tracking a 2D scene that is really 3D - you only get 2D movements X and Y. In this case they should have tracked
the sky and then set up a 3D path and 3D camera in After Effects which would follow the sky, and the object would follow that 3D path from back to
front. When the object reached above the hills, because it was a 3D path and 3D camera, it should have applied somewhat proper parallax. That just
doesn't seem to be what they did.
4: Probably the most damning of all the evidence for me... If you download the raw video and find the exact point the UFO is first visible in the
scene, you will see it is 100% motionless for 4 frames before it starts to move. After that point it moves a little every single frame. This evidence
really hits home for me for a couple reasons... I have done this before by mistake, and I think they did it by mistake too.
When you have a long video, and at some point in the video you want an object to slowly appear, you scrub to the timestamp you want the object to
appear and you place the object there (it will sit there the entire video). Then you set the opacity of the object to 0% so that it is not visible.
Then you animate the opacity so that it increases from 0% to 100% over a few frames when you want it to appear. So when the video is rendered you
don't see the object, and then slowly the object starts to become visible at the timestamp you want.
A common problem I have come across with After Effects is when you use the slider UI control to change the opacity instead of changing the value
directly by typing in that value. There has been times I meant to change the opacity to 0% but it actually only went to 4% or some very small value
that I didn't notice until after rendering the video. I would notice a ghost of the object in the entire movie, and then when its cue to come into
video arrived it would show up and start moving... I think that may have happened here. It's quite funny, you can see the UFO sit there for 4 frames
before it's movement animation started, and then its opacity animation to make it seem like its getting closer and more visible.
I would call this a fake, easily so.