CGI killing real UFO sightings. Take a look at this Australia video.

Actually CGI hoaxes can also be seen as a good thing because it primes our mind into not buying everything presented to us as easily as we might have done before this tech made it available.

Originally posted by tomra
Browse through cgtalk.com or any other major board and you will find a batalion of people skilled and more than willing to make this stuff for the fun of it.

Thanks for the suggestion Tomra.

Given the number of threads regarding various UFO videos on ATS, I'm surprised that I haven't read more on this Forum about the general mechanics of how different software could be used to create different elements of video hoaxes.

Virtually all of the discussions involve analysis of a particular video (or simply express opinions, without any analysis, of particular videos). I'd be interested in articles which stood back from particular UFO video and talked about the general principles and video effects involved. Maybe I'll find more (or at least references to more) information on the cgtalk.com website that you mention than I've seen so far here on ATS.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by Cabanman
I found a couple of New UFO sightings from Australia which in my point of view are totaly CGI. I could be wrong, but have a pretty good Fakeometer. Lately, there have been a number of whell done CGI ufo clips. Pretty soon, we will not be able to tell the difference between real and fake. UFO pics and film will be noncredible and people will view ALL ufo sightings as faked or CGI even if they are not. God help us all, the ufo video clip and pic are going into extinction.

What can be done? Nothing.


Here see this video here


More ufo fakes here at Australian UFO wave





[edit on 30-7-2006 by Cabanman]

why do you say that they are CGI?

Saying that you have a good fakeometer is quite useless.

some of them do seem quite real.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by DrExtravaganza]

Annyway, i followed Tomra's sugestion and created a thread on cgitalk.com regarding those videos.


forums.cgsociety.org...


hope it helps in anyway.

I'm qualified so I'll try to give you some insight.

People have been faking UFO’s in photos and video’s since long before CG took root. Fakes were much easier to spot in the past than they are now. However it requires the original negative or film footage to say definitively one way or the other. With the original in hand fakes are pretty easy to spot. These compressed images (.jpeg’s, .avi’s etc.) are useless and the people providing them are often aware of that. CG 3D animation is just now coming to the point footage could fool someone that has the software and the knowledge of how to spot fakes. The biggest problem is shadows and light sources. Now thanks to high dynamic range illumination you can use the actual environment as your light source and get near perfect representations. To fake a still digital photo that could fool an expert is now possible but a video is very unlikely. It would take an experienced professional to do the compositing and I doubt many would risk their reputations to do so.

Many of the video’s floating around the web now are fakes. One way to spot one is if the supposed UFO is jittery, appears to change shape slightly between frames or does not transition smoothly between frames. That is a product of rendering flaws as an object is morphed between frames.

Another common one is not so much a fake as a misinterpretation of what they are seeing. Depending on the number of pixels and the quality of the equipment distant objects often blur into poorly defined ellipsoid shapes. Birds in the distance and distant airplanes will often look like the classic UFO shape ill-defined in the video. In some cases the opposite is true. Modern digital cameras are capable of very sharp, clear footage and one has to wonder why so many supposed UFO videos are so blurry. Particularly since even the cheapo camcorders have image stabilization and will zoom to 20X (optical) or more. If the camera can't see it neither can you. One of the reasons so many people say that the object was not there when they took the photo or video is that the bird or plane was there and they did not notice it because it was normal and therefore unnoticed. These are not fakes but more like wishful thinking. Many want to see a real UFO so bad their minds will not let them admit what they shot was a flock of birds.

Either way unless you can obtain the original raw file, it’s probably a fake. These low quality compressed video’s posted on the net are of no use whatsoever. The compression process causes so many artifacts that no such video should ever be used as proof of anything. If the presenter won’t provide you with the raw files on disc then beware you are about to get screwed. If they claim they lost it or it was stolen? Yeah Sure!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they say it would cost too much? A blank disc is less than 50 cents and a stamp is how much? You get my point. Offer them 10 bucks and if they still say no, run away your being played for a fool.

I have seen an object, with my own eyes, which I can not explain on two occasions; once as a teenager and once last year here in Anchorage. The one last year I think was an experimental aircraft, but the first one I think was the genuine article. I’d love to find indisputable photo evidence but have yet to see any. I have seen some older photo’s that may well be the real deal but without the negatives it’s impossible to tell. I have also found many that were small aircraft flying away from the viewer or streetlights shot on a hazy day, in black and white, back when film emulsions were not so good and the image has faded to the point you can not see the pole it is suspended from. The small aircraft flying away from the viewer would seem to account for many of the classic UFO shapes.

Originally posted by DrExtravaganza
Annyway, i followed Tomra's sugestion and created a thread on cgitalk.com regarding those videos.


forums.cgsociety.org...


hope it helps in anyway.

He he, let´s just hope they don´t get any crazy ideas now
Just to clarify, i´m not saying they are doing it, just saying they are tecnically capable of doing it.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by tomra]