"he has made an additional renering in whch the drone image is PERFECT. He corrected all the lighting/focal errors Chad left in his original."

Exactly -- rendering + "lighting errors" + "focal errors" + "PERFECT" == issues of photorealism. How else can you interpret this? Would we be using words like "PERFECT" if it was just another 3D model like all the others? No, we're talking about how convicing his new image is, beacuse the whole point here is that it's allegedly easy to make a photoreal fake UFO picture that can rival or surpass Chad's.

Again, since it was clear within days of the original photos appearing that any decent modeler can recreate the design of the craft rather easily, there was obviously no reason to drag Wayne into this if all he was going to do was make yet another model. We already have plenty of those.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that all the Photoshop/rendering/realism details are the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, and were the reason anyone thought these might be real UFO pictures in the first place. People haven't been discussing these images beacuse someone made a 3D model and uploaded the pictures. There are a billion 3D artists online and we aren't here to discuss any of them. People are discussing these images beacuse they apparently look real to a great many people.

You keep saying "he was just making a reproduction" -- so I ask you then, what was the purpose of this reproduction if not to prove how easy it allegedly is to match the level of realism? Did he really go to all this trouble just to show us that he too is capable of making yet another 3D model? Even though we knew that from day one? Was that really what Springer's big news was about?

Either he can match the *realism* of the original photos, or he can't. But TAHT's what the discussion is about, and THAT's what we mean when we say "reproduction". You appearently mean something else, but I'm not understanding what that could be, since there's no other relevant issue.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by alevar]

Originally posted by alevar
Exactly -- rendering + "lighting errors" + "focal errors" + "PERFECT" == issues of photorealism. How else can you interpret this? Would we be using words like "PERFECT" if it was just another 3D model like all the others? No, we're talking about how convicing his new image is, beacuse the whole point here is that it's allegedly easy to make a photoreal fake UFO picture that can rival or surpass Chad's.

Springer:
"he has made an additional renering in whch the drone image is PERFECT. He corrected all the lighting/focal errors Chad left in his original."

I guess you could construe the word PERFECT in any way you want. But the fact is Springer said, reproduced Chad's initial "drone" in 2 hours of work..that would == reproduction. Right? And he is talking about the lighting "PERFECT" he mentions lighting/focal errors along the same lines. Right? or do I need a translator...

Originally posted by alevar
Again, since it was clear within days of the original photos appearing that any decent modeler can recreate the design of the craft rather easily

I totally agree, but your the one who brought up the 12yr old theory==the model design.

Originally posted by alevar
What you don't seem to be understanding is that all the Photoshop/rendering/realism details are the WHOLE POINT of this discussion,

Whatever gave you that ideal lol... and who's whole point, yours? The discussion in this thread is to cover the whole story. However, I do understand what you are saying, though the issue of photo realism has been covered already in other threads. You could go on about photo realism all day, but the fact is Wayne's picture is a photo reproduction, not a total production.... As I said before some things have been left out.

Originally posted by alevar
so I ask you then, what was the purpose of this reproduction if not to prove how easy it allegedly is to match the level of realism?

To me it seemed, some people wanted a better reproduction, such as lighting ext.... and thats what we got. lol

I can't read Wayne's mind, I don't know if he was going for realism. After all he did it in a short amount of time and left out few details as mentioned. But he certainly did reproduced it for Springer..maybe that was his purpose?

The post above makes perfect sense to me!

The drone pics make perfect sense to me. I'm not sure what you see that doesn't make sense, it's just pictures.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
The drone pics make perfect sense to me. I'm not sure what you see that doesn't make sense, it's just pictures.

It's just pictures? Are you sure?

Well for now they're just pictures, untill proven otherwise. It's not like this is the first wave of alien invaders or anything. I personally think the pictures are of manmade object and the alien language is there just to throw people off, so it makes perfect sense

Originally posted by OverlordQ
Hey guys, see

lol

But aren't T-Rex's supposed to be considerably bigger than that?



Thanks for the laugh.

Well I am back and I am happy to report there is no "Drone Invasion" on the Illinois River.

I would also like to point out that photo realism is a straw man argument. The fact the original "photos" had focal/resolution and lighting errors so huge they defy the physical nature of light in this plane of reality deems that part of the equation moot.

The "test" for Wayne was to recreate the "drone" with little effort and time as we doubted, based on the shoddy workmanship of the originals, this was the produce of "Chops Master".

Wayne was utterly successful IMHO. Your mileage may vary. "Photo realism" is done in Photoshop and takes an additional hour or so and Wayne's time is a little too valuable for wasting on something anyone with the desire to research the subject can learn about anyway.

The concept here was to get the drone done in a couple hours. It was.

Springer...

Fine job done on this, more for the language deciphers to play with

[Edit] I'm starting to lean towards the viral marketing too, simply because I think this is too much work for one single hoaxer to do.

[edit on 26/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Hope we'll know the truth behind 'Issac', real ? or the viral marketing continues on. As all know we were due for another installment this week. We are late by two days. I was wondering why there were no new pics of the drone this week

To me, it seems like this may be the next installment, since there have been no other sightings.

But what it means if it is, I have no clue.

On the other hand...

These images could very well be cgi as well, cleverly disguised by re-photographing them to appear the way they do.

2 and a half cents...

[Edit] Whops, wrong thread

[edit on 27/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

Currently we got at least 7 active floating topics on this + one sticky + 2 topics regarding the link Chad/Ghostraven + the large "wildfire" thread posted by Ghostraven...discussion is getting kinda hard to follow and it´s quite impossible to contribute in a useful way.

Could we please clean this mess up?!
Mods?

frikk, welcome! You got a lot reading ahead of you as this topic is extremly popular and the ball doesn´t seem to slow down

Personally i´m 100% convinced that all the provided footage so far is done digitally. The first images that appeared was quite poor work and most likely WIP´s. It´s getting pretty refined tho and presented in a 3D webforum i would give several stars!

Added by edit : comment to frikk

[edit on 28-6-2007 by tomra]

Hallo all im back sorry i been gone for so long.... anyways(and on topic) i just came across this this morning when i got home from work, I guess i deserve to be so behind the ball cause ive been away from ATS... that being said this really stinks of something viral... while i really enjoyed "Issac's" letter this all seemed to be alil too much. While im not sure if that just me being socialized to immediatly discredit anything of non terrestrial orgin this does seem fishy. The fact that its on Digg makes it all the more likely to either be viral marketing, a really really well done hoax, or clever disinformation. After going through Titor we in the UFO community really need to be on our toes for things like this. Most importantly springer is one person you can trust... while i wouldn't say dont research it for yourself bear in mind that a person like Springer thinks they are fake. All that being said this could totally make a great TV show or video game... keep that in mind. This may seem counter intuitive but im more apt to believe that its a UFO if its a "crappy" blurred image and less of a produced photo... lets face it most people really suck at taking pictures.... while we all like to think we take phenomenal photos or that we rock at photoshop there are actual experts out thier and a good majority of them, even non skeptics, are not buying this.

Either way ill keep up if nothing else its great entertainment..... Thanks ATS again

ahh, John Titor!

So whats the story about Titor here on the forums? I used to be into Titor as well, I checked out his website. What ended up coming of it?