Secret Web, thank you for your time...

I think some of you need to take a chill pill. What does it matter if such and such program is way better than some other one? This member took the time out of his work to try to help us in our investigation and all you do is nit pick... Sure some of you might be offended at how he introduced himself, or disagree with his premises/methods, but at least thank him for his contribution. Seriously, are you attacking him or his points?

I personally think that Secret Web made some interesting points to help definitively prove that this was a hoax CGI, regardless of his render engine or polygon counts. I have also held the conviction that the images were CGI hoaxes the instant I saw them on C2C, which is actually what brought me here to ATS. To try to inform about it being a Viral Marketing Campaign... Maybe its a garage hoaxer, maybe its Microsoft, maybe its the CIA, but to me its a HOAX.

Still looking for the Truth,
DocMoreau

I just want to clarify that I'm not attacking Wayne at all. I think he's a very capable modeler and I don't doubt his qualifications. My posts have been entirely directed at his images, not him. They certainly aren't attacks.

I'm just upset that Springer hyped this so much and what we're left with isn't really much better than the numerous 3D recreations that have been in the works since this all started (if at all). It not only makes me seriously doubt Springer's "eye" for this kind of stuff (which I mean with all due respect, honestly), since he described these rather lackluster recreations as "amazing", but it also dissapoints me since most of us are relying on the resident 3D experts to keep this hoax in perspective, and images like this (especially when they're hyped as being a smoking-gun or whatever) just hurt our credibility as skeptics/debunkers/whatever.

So far, I think our reactions have just been honest (and understandable) criticism. I'm grateful that Springer and Wayne took the time to do this, but when shameless hype combined with what is clearly sub-par material is given center stage, it only hurts our ability to honest criticize and investigate.

Also, I agree very much with spf33 that the idea that he's "proven" the exact lighting model simply by recreating something similar is not only very silly, but shows a rather poor understanding of 3D graphics in general.

When that much hype fails to deliver, you can't be surprised by negative reactions, but that doesn't necessarily make them "attacks".

Originally posted by DocMoreau
What does it matter if such and such program is way better than some other one? ...regardless of his render engine or polygon counts.

it becomes important because he is being touted as the professional and declares the chad images fakes, period.

so at that point, just like springer wants to know my credentials, i want to how capable the guy is to make his determination.

and it's clear to me that while he certainly has talent, his use of terminology and the esoteric technical jargon are enough off the mark as to cause me to discount his opinion and seriously question his arrogance in his declaration of "fake".


[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Seriously, are you attacking him or his points?

That was my thought. I'm not qualified to make any comment about the technical issues being discussed, but I was struck by the accusatory, indignant, and even sarcastic tone of responses to secret web's work. Is there any reason why the various critiques couldn't be a little respectful? Why all the emotion? To a neutral bystander, they reek of professional jealousy.

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Seriously, are you attacking him or his points?

That was my thought. I'm not qualified to make any comment about the technical issues being discussed, but I was struck by the accusatory, indignant, and even sarcastic tone of responses to secret web's work. Is there any reason why the various critiques couldn't be a little respectful? Why all the emotion? To a neutral bystander, they reek of professional jealousy.

Because Springer billed this as the be-all end-all knock-down argument. And it was anything but.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear -- if these images were presented as yet another 3D recreation for the sake of proving how the images could have been made, and nothing more, then I wouldn't have had anything to say other than probably "You're moving in the right direction, keep up the good work!" or something. But they weren't.

Hype bothers me. I'm here to investigate this issue, not turn it into some kind of faux-media circus with "big events coming soon!" and crap like that. When I feel like I'm listening to a sales pitch, I get offended beacuse that kind of talk smacks of dishonesty. I'm not saying Springer is dishonest (I don't think he is), I'm just saying that's the way that kind of hype-talk always hits my ears.

Also, as qualified as Wayne may be, his post was littered with a sense of hubris and ego that bothers me as well, which I found rather strange considering the poor qualify of the resulting images. I think ALL OF US-- myself included-- would do well to put more of an emphasis on humility and open-mindedness, rather than acting like we've got all the answers.

Yes, it's a hoax. But it's a big hoax, and it demands a proper rebuttal. This isn't it.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by alevar]

Originally posted by spf33

springer, we've already done this dance. i've already given you a summation of my "credentials". i might even consider giving just you my contact info just to put this to rest.

We have? Dam sorry then, I admit I have been buried the past few weeks and I simply don't remember. A thousand apologies.

Originally posted by spf33

you don't clearly don't understand the variables at work in 3d here.

You are absolutely correct, I don't and if I implied I did it was through bad choices of words and not intended.

Originally posted by spf33
ridiculous assumption.
i'm sick of the disinfo and the ignorance.

Disinfo? That's rich, what disinfo? Ignorance I'll buy, thus the whole bloody point of having professionals like Wayne EDUCATE US. I am sick of snotty grouches who keep tossing the ridiculous word "disinfo" around THAT is IGNORANT mate. My point was I believe Wayne made a statement and he backed it up, you treated a guy, who is TRYING to help us, poorly and we don't do that here at ATS.

I don't care if you are the GOD of CGI, this is ATS and we treat eachother with civility and have FRIENDLY discussions.

Now, I have asked a GENUINE "GOD" of CGI/Photoshop to have a look at this work and will await his impression. I have to say this sounds very much like sour grapes from several of you. If any of you are capable of doing better than Wayne, please step up. If not LIGHTEN UP, this is not the end of the world! Really, it isn't.

Springer...

alevar you toss out words like "Shameless Hype" as if it actually happened. I never "Hyped" anything, I posted that Wayne had done what Wayne had done and I thought (and still do) they were AMAZING.

I am allowed to express my opinion even though I am one of the owners of this site. Wayne's work is OUTSTANDING and far exceeds ANYTHING I've seen to date.

I am sorry if your expectations weren't met but don't lay that in my lap mate.

I would like to add that your expectations not being met is no reason (since there is no acceptable reason) for the snotty, indignant attitude toward someone who gave of his free time and DID SOMETHING.

Regardless of your opinion that it was "hyped", it wasn't, you have agreed (when you agreed to the TAC) to comport yourself with a certain level of decorum when posting on these boards.

Springer...

[edit on 6-21-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

Disinfo? That's rich, what disinfo? Ignorance I'll buy, thus the whole bloody point of having professionals like Wayne EDUCATE US. I am sick of snotty grouches who keep tossing the ridiculous word "disinfo" around THAT is IGNORANT mate. My point was I believe Wayne made a statement and he backed it up, you treated a guy, who is TRYING to help us, poorly and we don't do that here at ATS."

you do have a point about tossing around the disinfo term so lightly...

but he is passing out incorrect information to back up his biased investigation.

he lit his scene mixing a random hdri image with a random google jpg for a background and tries to claim that produces something akin to a realistic lighting sim?

you don't have any idea how plainly and fundamentally wrong this method is.

I don't care if you are the GOD of CGI, this is ATS and we treat eachother with civility and have FRIENDLY discussions.

i'm not. and i have been.

Now, I have asked a GENUINE "GOD" of CGI/Photoshop to have a look at this work...

yeah, you keep at it. the world is full of decent cg artists, and i'm sure you will have no trouble finding one with not only a dvd to sell, but one who thinks just like you.

Both sides of the fence are presenting valid, interesting, persuasive arguments - but on the fence I remain.

Thank you Wayne for taking the time and making the strong effort to compare and contrast your renditions with those of the Chad drones. It was quite gallant of you - and very much appreciated.

Thank you also, Springer, for bringing yet another perspective to light. Your dedication to revealing every possible facet is a commendable exercise (and seemingly thankless, on occasion).

Thank you Doc, for trying to keep the peace and trying so hard to look at this issue with fresh and fair eyes - ATS always welcomes folks like you because you remind us of our human frailties with vigor -and great diplomacy.

Finally, thanks to you alevar, because you are brave enough to step forward and 'give voice' to what others may also be thinking but are either incapable or unmotivated to say so.

Yes, like Doc and many others, I believe the evidence is almost overwhelming that this is indeed a cgi/hoax effort by one or more "artists" of as-yet-to-be-determined influence and persuasion.

But the jury is still out and the judge "in chambers". This was a fine testimonial - but not yet the final nails in the coffin we are so patiently awaiting.

Lots of eyes and ears are focused on this subject. While most of us are "denying ignorance" - we must accept (i.e., cannot deny) that, to some extent and for the time being, ignorant we must remain.

Hopefully such will not be the case indefinitely...

Next witness please...

Originally posted by spf33

yeah, you keep at it. the world is full of decent cg artists, and i'm sure you will have no trouble finding one with not only a dvd to sell, but one who thinks just like you.

You don't smile much do you? You seem incapable of posting without getting a jab or dig in, well if you can't learn civility you will be banned and that would be an utterly STUPID situation.

You see I am actually absorbing the data you are bringing to the table too. The ONLY problem you have is you are interminably GROUCHY, why is that? Never mind, I don't care, just don't bring it here. Be civil and, God forbid, friendly, can you do that?

Now to your dig, why you don't you tell me how I think? Because you don't know.

In that light, I'll tell you how I think, I think the DATA is all that matters, if the data proves my opinion wrong I change my opinion. As it stands right now the Data says these are CGI hoaxes and thus my opinion is these are CGI hoaxes.

Pretty straightforward eh?

Springer...

Originally posted by Outrageo
This was a fine testimonial - but not yet the final nails in the coffin we are so patiently awaiting.

I think it's been nailed shut and buried for some time. Even now, amidst all the commotion, there is a central point of agreement among all the cgi folks--the drone photos are fake. Good enough for me.

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by spf33

yeah, you keep at it. the world is full of decent cg artists, and i'm sure you will have no trouble finding one with not only a dvd to sell, but one who thinks just like you.

You don't smile much do you? You seem incapable of posting without getting a jab or dig in, well if you can't learn civility you will be banned and that would be an utterly STUPID situation.

look, i'm sick of the cocky attitudes, i sick of the mis-information, i'm sick of opinion passed off as fact, i'm sick of my re-found sense that 7 out of 10 people have serious intelligence issues...

so no, as it relates to this case, i'm not smiling a whole lot.

Now to your dig, why you don't you tell me how I think? Because you don't know.

from your own keyboard:

"One can get an expert to pass opinion on ANYTHING, unfortunately when your "expert" uses uncontrolled data as his basis for his opinion it's obvious his opinion adds no value or credibility to the contention you hope to prove."

and that is exactly what wayne, your latest expert, has done.

so no, i have no idea what you think other than not a large assumption that you believe these images to be hoaxed and apparently will hoist up and point to anyone who will help support your belief while mocking those that differ.

As it stands right now the Data says these are CGI hoaxes and thus my opinion is these are CGI hoaxes.

the data does not say these are cg hoaxes, that again is your opinion.


@yuefo - "there is a central point of agreement among all the cgi folks--the drone photos are fake"

there is?
who? the ats cg experts?
this cg folk is not ready to label any of the object photos hoaxes. and currently i have found nothing that indicates hoax or fake.


[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

Originally posted by spf33
@yuefo - "there is a central point of agreement among all the cgi folks--the drone photos are fake"

there is?
who? the ats cg experts?
this cg folk is not ready to label any of the object photos hoaxes. and currently i have found nothing that indicates hoax or fake.
[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

Sorry, I spoke hastily. I had the impression you and Alevar were on the same page, but unlike him, you've not labeled them fake, my mistake.

I think we are going to see some capitalized words coming up SPF! There may even be a few in italics!

The argument can't be won by either group. If these so called witnesses fade away so does the thought (and hope for some) these objects are real.

Witnesses come forth and are credible......lotsa CGI Stew for dinner.

Either way it's a waiting game, but in the mean time reading these posts is a time filler.

Becker

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Becker44]

Wayne (secret web),

You are a very good CG artist no doubt, and I'm thankful that you tried, but I must say that this is NOT your finest work
The 'renders' of chad are way better then these, which look like an amateurish attempt at the most.

You didn't even model the drone, just spinned up the spinners very high and hit render. 24 hrs, trillion polys, and complex algorithms don't automatically produce a photoreal image my friend. You really need to learn the art. On that you call chad lazy? I mean how do you know that LOL

In CG industry, its not talent if you can handle a billion polys and set up maxwell, even a kid can do that. Its reverse, one is considered a good artist when he utilizes LEAST amount of polys and LEAST amount of render time to spawn a photoreal image. If you disagree, ask your seniors.

Now back to the topic, did anyone consider that the chad images are scanned pics and have gone through manipulation many times before hitting the web? How can they resemble a default render straight out of 3ds max? Has anyone thought that if it looks so real and fault free, it can be a real thing? Real in the sense of a scale model, not an alien drone....

This is the first forum I've seen where a mod is starting a fight . Shouldn't mods be neutral? Springer should realize that being a mod, people tend to take his comments a lil bit more seriously and me too was all hyped and excited when I read that finally some proof is arrving. Nevermind s**** happens !

PS: I intend no personal offense to anyone here. This is my honest opinion and not a flame or defense of the drone being real. I'm certain that its fake. I think that no amount of duplicating this thing in 3D is going to prove it though. Its common sense.

OK I thought it time for a reply.

First off I was asked by Springer to reproduce the drone and hence thats what I did. No I didn't just 'spin everything up high' that is an insult whether you realise it or not.

The billion polygon quote was a throw away line to illustrate that these days no polygon count or detail is too high or unobtainable It WAS NOT intended to be a 'look how many polys I can use' game...far from it.

Maxwell unlike other render engines simulates light..it doesn't fake it. Due to this it is incredibly slow in comparision, the render times I quoted are not anything outof the ordinary (take a look on their own forum, you'll see this is born out many many time.) The longer maxwell is left to bake the more realistic the image is. This is a fact. We are not talking about something like mental ray or renderman here, its a different technology entirely as I pointed out.

Someone said that pulling a image off google and using ' a random hdri image' isn't going to give relaitic lighting. Sorry but that is dead wrong. While films do often use custom HDRI's for reflections etc (I didn't use it for the lighting part, only the very very subtle reflections....everything on the planet reflects light to some degree hence its IOR number.) The HDRI I used was carefully chosen to match the colors and main shapes on the image I picked for my background.

A HDRI isn't a magic bullet. It is there to give something for the object or objects to reflect as very few things have razor sharp reflections in life, you'll find that this is a commonly used technique.

(In fact if memory serves me when adding something to one of the re-releases of the star wars films no HDRI was available due to its age so ILM used the same technique themselves. )

I referrred to Chad as 'Chad' not as an insult but as I think its a fairly good guess that it isn't his real name. As we dont know what his name is, it seemed fairer all around to put it like that.

The 2 hour limit I had would have been far less than 'Chad' would have taken. As this is a proof of concept that in my mind proves that it IS fake there was no way on gods green litle earth I was going to sit for endless amounts of time for something that is basically unpaid. Sorry but thats a fact of life. Could I be wrong....anyone can be wrong I'd be stupid to think my opinion was the be all and end all.

In any image it is the lighting and shading work that 'sells' it as real.

Next up is allegations of my being basically an ego driven person on some sort of self promotion trip. (If I'm taking people correctly here.) I dont have an ego, as an artist I dont have that privelidge. No matter how much of 'me' goes into any of my works at the end of the day someone has to pay for it. If its not what they want or expect they will say so.

The reason I mentioned about the DVD's wasnt as a 'look at me' thing, but to illustrate an important point I felt personally had to be made. It showed that I up till now I haven't had the time to recreate this. I dont expect or indeed WANT any sales for this board. Mainly as my dvd's are aimed at a specific market or are as useful as a chocolate tea cosey to a goldfish to anyone else.

Could the images be beter...? Undoubtedly. As I outlined clearly I spent 2 hours on them to prove that certain mistakes were made. There are only so many things an explanation of 'jpeg artifacting' will cover. The fact that aa stock shader chosen by myself as a base to start from proved to give the same effect as the surface of the 2-2.jpg chad series of images says alot I feel. Although others obviously disagree.

I wrote the posts in the style I did for a reason. Plus I had to try and find a happy meeting ground between the technical way of explaining, and a more easy to understand way for people with no experience.

Hopefully this puts some of my side of things in a nice polite none offensive way.

Wayne

Well at least for me you managed to do the exact opposite, you've proven that the originals likely aren't cgi. Good job though for 2h

spf33:

You're sick of alot, well, I am sorry to hear that. You have a serious issue with social interaction, you're GROUCHY and a tad arrogant and you make assumptions based on what YOU believe.

Nobody is mocking you but we are tiring of your grouchiness.

You accuse me of propping up anyone who will support MY opinion, that is PURE BOLLOCKS. I am propping up EXPERTS with CREDENTIALS who are WILLING TO ADD TO THE DATA SET. If a credentialed expert came to me and said I know these are REAL I would say have at it, make your case and "prop" him up as high (or maybe even HIGHER) as any other expert.

But you know what? THERE ISN'T ONE!

GET OVER IT or move on. I don't know how much more patient I can be your last post was "grouchier" than your previous ones.

Your not moving in the right direction. Last chance mate.

Springer...


[edit on 6-21-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer
If a credentialed expert came to me and said I know these are REAL I would say have at it, make your case and "prop" him up as high (or maybe even HIGHER) as any other expert.

But you know what? THERE ISN'T ONE!

i almost have enough motivation from that statement alone to come out and start claiming the photos are real!

but you know what? i wont declare the images as real or fake because there is not enough pixel data in any of the images, and what is there is compressed to all heck, to declare hoax or real with any solid foundation.

and seriously how many personal insults can you throw at me in an attempt to cover your flawed logic?

GET OVER IT or move on. I don't know how much more patient I can be your last post was "grouchier" than your previous ones.

losing patience? because we are discussing and debating a presentation on the current situation that was made public at your behest just hours ago?

what in god's name is wrong with calling out your expert's mistakes or ignorances, especially when they make black and white claims?


and here;

there's a smile from me to you.

Originally posted by spf33
what in god's name is wrong with calling out your expert's mistakes or ignorances, especially when they make black and white claims?

I think one of the difficulties here is that in this "Battle of the Experts" we have several who say the drones are fake CGI and one, spf33, that says that is unproven. Fair so far? jritzmann, ATS resident expert, been here awhile, says they are fake. dbiedney, recognized PhotoShop expert (all over the net) says they are fake. Wayne, represented as an expert by Springer, pulls together a drone clone (you like that?) in two hours that to the unpracticed eye (mine) is as good as the original. Really, I can't see much difference (which I think is the point.) I don't give a rat's behind about polygon pixellation techniques or rendering times or a billion this or that: I just see the result.

spf33, a self-proclaimed expert who has ALREADY posted his bona fides in schooling and some experience, is attacking, rather vociferously, the 2 hour drone clone as not as good as the originals. Well, I have an idea.

If Wayne can throw together a drone clone in two hours flat, rather than take two more hours answering every post and continuing to criticize Wayne, why don't you, spf33, show us how it's done? You're the expert, right? According to you, you're more of an expert than anyone else so far. In terms of our cluster of experts, you're also the odd-man out. So show us your stuff! Get your ducks in a row and then post "Go!" Two hours later we will see the results of your efforts. Now let's not say you don't have the time. Your posts on this very topic cover several hours of reading and typing, so there is no doubt you DO have the time.

So let's go. It's time to dump the resume and see that expertise of yours in action!

[edit on 6/21/2007 by schuyler]