[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Hello,

First let me say greetings to everyone, as this is my first post. I wish to comment on the images but before I do I would like to give a little background of my "qualifications" first. I do this not to toot my own horn, but to hopefully give some insight on my background and why I have come to the conclusion that I am presenting.

I have worked in Hollywood the last 7 years or so in the Animated movie business. I have worked for FX shops, in model shops and for one of the largest CGI animation studios in the world. I have several movie credits for animated films, and have been fortunate enough to work alongside some of the most talented, well respected, award winning artists, lighters, effects crew, and programmers in the movie business.

I helped develop and deploy the color standard which starts from an artists CRT (yes, they *still* use CRTs for color animation) and ends on your local theater's projector. Most major animation studios and even post production houses use these techniques and my code to maintain such consistency.

I have seen some of the best CGI renderings, things you would be shocked to know that are not real , and I have also seen some of the most amazing hand built models that you would swear to be CGI (and most have)on the big screen!

I have found several bugs in Photoshop, Maya and Houdini and worked closely with the their dev teams to reproduce and eventually help them test the fixed versions.

Having said all that, in my professional opinion about these images :

They are real objects.

However, they are real models. Most likely not much larger than your hand.
Most likely vacuum formed styrene with some metal parts as well. The small "tubes" or tube-like devices all have the stretched sprue appearance, a dead giveaway to their construction and the scale. The pieces that look like they would be easiest to wetsand and buff appear to be, and the pieces that would be most difficult have been left flat.

Someone earlier had mentioned this looked like a plastic model and in my professional opinion I would say they are 100% correct. It also was mentioned that they could see the film around the symbols on the beams, given the grain of the image when zoomed in. I could not see this, but this does not mean it's not. One can easily trim the film around each symbol and once affixed to the beam use a flattening agent to smooth it out, and with enough clear coat built up on the piece it would melt right in. Then a good wet sand and buff to level it all out and there you go.

If I am wrong about this, and I am 100% certain that I'm not given the thousands of models and countless hours of CGI scenes and images I've seen and worked on, then what we have would be an excellent CGI image...of a model.

Oh, I also agree with the poster who said the one scanned image looks like it was processed through a "half tone" type filter, I believe that's exactly what was done to produce the effect.


Cheers.

Originally posted by Soloist
They are real objects.

You know, the entire time I was reading about your unproven credentials, I was thinking to myself and I knew you were going to say the above quote.

Soloist, since you are such a highly decorated "expert", please tell me what you think about these posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please read every single one of them.


p.s. Soloist how did you get so many stars for claiming something with ZERO proof? So many stars for just an opinion and nothing new??

Seems to me like multiple accounts are flying around..

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Soloist
I helped develop and deploy the color standard which starts from an artists CRT (yes, they *still* use CRTs for color animation) and ends on your local theater's projector. Most major animation studios and even post production houses use these techniques and my code to maintain such consistency.

You know, I tired to let it pass, but it didn't work. Truthfully, I don't believe you AT ALL. Please tell me how you "developed and deployed" a "color standard"??

Please tell me what "Standard" this is? I would like to know. Do you work for the ISO?

What is your experience or involvement with ICC?

Also, what type of CRT monitors do you work with? Because, personally, since I helped design NVIDIA's Geforce 8800, I found CRT's quite limiting, since they are analog and use VGA inputs.

---edit----

Also, HDRI is not capable of displaying correctly on CRT monitors, so I don't think what you are saying is truth, and you might be faking it.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Fellas please, they warned this thread already. A forensic expert will tell you that digital photos are incredibly easy to hoax, and only in the last few months have come up with some means if analyzing them. Otherwise we are to some extent blowing smoke.. By sept 25 we will know whether this was all part of a viral campaign like IRIS via microsoft that even uses the caret symbol as for an educational program called , CARET. or its part of the Partizan group in california, which is part of the French Partizan group that did the Haiti hoaxes..who are also working on a project dealing with 2 boys invoved in runaway ufo hoax. They did use small handsized models in theirs and have their own process for making it super real in any background. They have whole divisions that do nothing but viral campaigns .

You guys are really smart and I love hearing discussions but not the personal stuff .t we lose it if we argue like this..

Peace Out

Sys

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by 11 11


You know, I tired to let it pass, but it didn't work. Truthfully, I don't believe you AT ALL. Please tell me how you "developed and deployed" a "color standard"??

I'm sorry that you don't believe me, what I said was a standard for color consistency. I developed the procedures and applications that allow studios to keep their white balance in the D6500 whitespace as defined by NTSC for the temperature of white measured in kelvin. When you see an animated film today, you most likely won't (well , you shouldn't!) be able to see any changes in the same colors from scene to scene. That is my code and team behind the scenes.

Also, what type of CRT monitors do you work with? Because, personally, since I helped design NVIDIA's Geforce 8800, I found CRT's quite limiting, since they are analog and use VGA inputs.

I started in the field when SGI monitors were the norm, 20D11, 20W11 (the widescreen model of a 20D11), 4011P, 5411 (Sony tube) to most high end 21 inch monitors have been in my test lab. HP (1120, 1130)CRT's are big mainstay currently and will be used for a number of years, some SGI's are still out there but are fading out fast. They take alot of abuse and not only does a monitor need to be able to be adjusted into the correct colorspace it needs to take the constant adjustment, which at the most can be weekly, at the least monthly.

The VGA input does not matter since all you are doing is driving the color patches, crosshatches, grayscale ramps and alignment grids through the input. All corrections and adjustments are made through the 4 pin connector that *most* monitors do not have access to. On a high end graphics monitor the manufacturer will have placed a pull out plug on the back of the monitor for access to the port. Some test models I have seen I had to actually cut the service port plug out myself.

All temperature measurements are taken via a colorimeter which I have programmed for each models characteristics. Adjustments are made from software I helped develop with a big help coming from Sony.

The tolerances for color temperature have to be so precise that they only allow for a +/- .02% of variation before some of the most talented animation directors, etc can tell the difference. And believe me they can! While alot of color can be corrected post-production it gets VERY expensive and makes sense to do this in house as regular operating procedure.

I'm sorry to hear you find most CRT's are limiting, however the animation studio's do not, and the artists will usually use a 3 or 4 monitor setup with a flatscreen, but they will *not* do color work on that monitor. Accurate (for movie studios) and reliable color work, tracking, banding issues, etc... can only be done on a CRT at this time.

I don't think what you are saying is truth, and you might be faking it.


[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Once again, I'm sorry you think I'm "faking it" , which seems a little silly to me, why would I "fake it" to offer up my opinion that the pictures are models?

In any case, here's a little more for you since you think I'm lying about my background, and a little more to hopefully show my point...

If you think the shuttle in the movie Armageddon was CGI (lots of people have) :







Here's some more shots of models others have thought was CGI, from the movie Reign of Fire (I know, horrible movie ) :





In actuality in that movie, *ALL* of the shots of London are models. Very well done models at that. I realize you can see the name of the company in one of the shots, but since it's no longer in business I didn't black it out.

So, if you still believe that I am "faking it" about my background then I am truly sorry, but good luck finding these pictures on the net or elsewhere, as I took them myself with my digital camera at work.

The reason for explaining my background was to give some insight on why I feel the images are models, not get into an ego war. I have seen thousands or models of all types over the years and still believe 100% they are styrene models.

very nice work Soloist.. I didn't take your intro as boasting. On another forum a poor photo expert was taken to task over his work..his credentials..and delayed discussion for several pages..with posturing by members when he had been approached to help. I think what is happening is the frustration..I understand that there was a kind of competition between modelers and cgi , when To this day I always thought they went together and I still do thus, both your and 11 11 opinions will be highly recieved..

I am posting the links for forensics and Partizan and the Microsoft campaigns to others who may come in as I am sure you both are versed with the issues already concerning imagery, and the dificulty for poor laymen as myself have in distinguishing truth from fiction in these matters


www.networkworld.com...
www.partizan.com...
www.partizanlab.com.../biography
halo.wikia.com...
On interpreting the glyph suspiciously close to the caret glyph via overlapping

halo.wikibruce.com...

Sys

How do you get these images to display like that on your posts..I can't do it after 200 posts already.







[edit on 5-9-2007 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by Soloist
Once again, I'm sorry you think I'm "faking it" , which seems a little silly to me, why would I "fake it" to offer up my opinion that the pictures are models?

Soloist, excuse me for questioning everything, it is a habit of mine. Sometimes I ask people questions, using specially designed questions, that extract just enough information consciously, to help subconsciously answer the REAL questions.

First off, when I read your first post I found many contradictions, hence why I was skeptical of your "background", and your entire "opinion" that relies on your knowledge because of your "background".

The main thing I was curious about, is why you would spice up the name of your position and what you do, or claim you did? You claimed:

I helped develop and deploy the color standard which starts from an artists CRT and ends on your local theater's projector. Most major animation studios and even post production houses use these techniques and my code to maintain such consistency.


I developed the procedures and applications that allow studios to keep their white balance in the D6500 whitespace as defined by NTSC for the temperature of white measured in kelvin.

I started in the field when SGI monitors were the norm, 20D11, 20W11 (the widescreen model of a 20D11), 4011P, 5411 (Sony tube) to most high end 21 inch monitors have been in my test lab. HP (1120, 1130)CRT's are big mainstay currently and will be used for a number of years, some SGI's are still out there but are fading out fast. They take alot of abuse and not only does a monitor need to be able to be adjusted into the correct colorspace it needs to take the constant adjustment, which at the most can be weekly, at the least monthly.

Basically, you are taking credit for developing a field of service called a TV repair man, who will Calibrate and Profile your CRT monitor so the color is realistic. Many people "in the industry" know how to do this on their own with "Color Profiles" and or programs that do this for you, or you can adjust your monitor settings via front panel buttons. Actually Sony even makes a monitor that will auto calibrate itself.

There is a whole forum dedicated to calibration and colors:
www.colorforums.com...

You pretty much claimed to be the developer of all the methods used by the Imaging Science Foundation. www.imagingscience.com... Are you a tech. from ISF?

What does your knowledge in your field have to do with making a model, or being able to identify one?

While I don't question your knowledge about CRT monitors and TV's and Colors, I question your abilities to identify the difference between a real model and a cgi model. What does your "qualifications" have to do with movie and image special effects? I don't think you are telling us your true profession actually.

Why would you have images from inside Dream Quest Images, a.k.a. "The Secret Lab from Disney" handy, if all you do is adjust CRT monitors?

So, did you work at Dream Quest Images?

I have seen thousands or models of all types over the years and still believe 100% they are styrene models.

A reason I am suspicious is because images from this hoax have been found to have an "ICC Profile" trace in their EXIF data, and you come in here and say you pretty much developed methods to keep a "color standard".

www.color.org...

Till this minute you haven't answered my question about ICC, so I am lacking information, but, It would seem you would either know a LOT about it, or NOTHING about it. Either way, your story will be suspicious still.

I don't know why, but I calculated that you could possibly be connected to this hoax some how, except the obvious, that you are posting on ATS about it. After the "Haiti UFO", a "highly decorated" animator came forward to ATS as well, so forgive me for being curious. I just wanted to point out that ATS isn't exactly full of innocent people....

After you started posting pictures from Dream Quest Images, I had to do some digging naturally, because now I think you are an animator and not a TV repair man.

www.digitalmediafx.com...
The move comes after Disney laid off hundreds of animators earlier this year and slashed the salaries remaining animators by up to 50%.

When you said this:

The tolerances for color temperature have to be so precise that they only allow for a +/- .02% of variation before some of the most talented animation directors, etc can tell the difference. And believe me they can!

I figured that if you are the one adjusting that color temperature, and the talented directors can visually tell the difference, then MAYBE YOU might be able to tell the difference visually. Meaning that you probably would have found MANY LIGHTING ISSUES WITH MANY DIFFERENT DRONE IMAGES.

At this moment in time, I don't know what to believe from you.




[edit on 5-9-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
Soloist, excuse me for questioning everything, it is a habit of mine. Sometimes I ask people questions, using specially designed questions, that extract just enough information consciously, to help subconsciously answer the REAL questions.

Don't kid yourself pal, you're just downright rude.

You spray accusations around willy nilly on the basis that every now and then one will hit a target.

To be honest I don't know whether to believe any of the credentials you have ever claimed for yourself. You may well be the god of CGI but if so your universe obviously contains nothing else.

Give someone a break, question and probe by all means but at least do it politely. The way you defend your position of "it's all CGI" may lead someone to believe you know more than you do about the subject matter. I don't believe that for a second due to the artistic skill and subtlety employed but otherwise your posts lead to more suspicion than most of those you have accused of being part of this hoax.

I hope soloist continues their valuable contribution and answers your accusations, rather than being picky about which direct questions they will answer or not as you do.

Soloist - I am interested in what you say about the possible scale of a model, maybe this would account for some of the lighting irregularities highlighted in the drone pics, the rajman pics specifically (sorry I should put a link in here to the relevant section fo thread - I just don't have time at the moment) ?

Originally posted by chunder
Don't kid yourself pal, you're just downright rude.

Agreed.

I've been following this thread out of an academic interest more than anything.
Honestly, I tend to believe it's a very clever hoax and that the "artifacts" are in-fact CGI.

However, I've found 11 11's tone to be abusive, annoying, and a major detractor from this thread.

11 11, if you are so knowledgeable about the subject matter, you should know that it's not a simple thing to understand. IF you are the expert you claim to be, you should be more than willing to tolerate people who don't quite get it. You should also be interested in (not intolerant of) any attempt to punch holes in your theory. You never know, someone might just surprise you.

Aside from that, being an arse is just being an arse. Don't make up BS excuses for your lack of manners. Improve upon them.

I don't think you guys understand, and you are all over reacting. I was not being rude, I was being cautious.

When someone comes on here and claims high credentials, and they are "famous", and "made movies", and this and that, then they better know what they are talking about in that subject.

I asked him straight forward questions about his "qualifications". If he hadn't mentioned his "qualifications" I probably would not have asked him any questions.

I was wondering how he came to his conclusions. Simply visually seeing his conclusion, and mentally knowing the conclusion are 2 different things. I am very curious to know how his "qualifications" help his conclusion, besides seeing little models every day.

I'm pretty sure if you are stuck looking at 10000's of real models all day, you would start to think everything looks like a little model.

Don't Argue.

I don't care what your justifications are.
You are being told that your input is not being presented in a way that is appreciated.

Do better.

[Mods, do feel free to remove these comments. I'd rather not be making this sort of post in public, but I feel it's warranted in this case.]

reply to post by BitRaiser


BitRaiser, don't ever tell me what to do. I am not arguing with anybody. You Sir, are reading the words incorrectly.

I was simply asking him direct questions about his qualifications and his conclusion that these are models. PLEASE stay on topic, and stop making this about "me and him". It's about his POST! It is not rude to question someones "qualifications" when they claim they have them.

Stop trying to be a moderator.

TO SPRINGER, MODERATORS, AND POSTERS:

Once again I must step in with some observations I have on this ATS thread. We do need to keep up the repartee as long as it is not overly vulgar or attacks one's religious beliefs; this can only stimulate our minds and hearts to move forward. QUESTION EVERYTHING, TAKE NOTHING AT FACE VALUE. 11-11 is the real deal here and I have taken the time to vet most, if not all, of the comments and science he professes. Ejsaunders (Elliot) is smart and genteel and knows his stuff as does Sys_Config. I find that if I humor certain smart but sharp-tongued opinionated posters here (whose two names I will not mention as I fear reprisals) I won't get demeaned or raked over the coals so much, but I do prefer to speak my mind if it contributes to the discussion. There are many other great posters here so forgive me if I don't address you all.

Now, concerning our latest uber-poster, Soloist. Upon initial reading, I really did think we had Isaac or his ghost writer popping in here. Our personalities, for better or worse, shade our comments and challenges here, but I believe it's a PLUS for ATS as it keeps us in the real world.
I agree with 11 11's challenges and observations of our latest poster. Soloist's writing is more than a bit too pat, somewhat prideful and extremely self-centered. Just like Isaac's prose. No one can say with 100% certainty that these were styrene models with transfer decals unless they built them themselves or know the person who did. And Soloist countered with some dynamite photos of model-making, to be sure. Yet, I cannot believe that these ( CARET Inventory) models are ‘as big as your hand' when the models shown by Soloist are MUCH LARGER. And how about the DRONE photos? Are they as small as your hand too and made of styrene and festooned with decals? OK: model maker VS CGI render . . . it could be either, right? It still makes this a HOAX as most of us (but not all) will agree.





[edit on 5-9-2007 by klatunictobarata]

[edit on 6-9-2007 by klatunictobarata]

Soloist, welcome to ATS. You're contributions are well received, and I thank you for posting them. I concur with you 100%. I have always felt these objects are either models or much less likely, actual flying crafts, but either way they are real objects. I question the credentials of any "CGI expert" who claims these objects are computer generated, and who shuns the idea that they aren't. What many "CGI experts" fail to realize is that before there was CGI, graphics and movie industries still thrived from employing methods such as model making, animation cells, cameras, film, and lighting, etc.

Certain artifacts, such as the lighting in the photos may very well be computer generated, but the actual drones are not. I am 99% sure of that. I am not a 3D artist (although I've worked with many), rather I work in the printing and graphics industry as a 2D artist and have been for almost 15 years. I am also knowledgable of film and photography from my many years in the industry, as well as my father owning a promotional camera company. Most of my family works in the printing and graphics industry as well, and have owned a rather large printing company in the 80s.

Chunder and BitRaiser, I concur. Yes, there's a big difference between someone being "cautious and curious" than being rude and accusatory. Also, as we have seen on ATS many times, someone with even minimal knowledge of a certain field can claim they are experts and provide convincing arguments that the layman will believe and buy into 100%. Cult leaders are also quite good at programming people to their way of thinking.

Soloist -- I look forward to hearing more insights from you. The only thing I disagree with you on is the size of the models you believe the drones to be. I happen to think they are quite a bit larger than what would fit in your hand. .....Unless you believe that all the objects in the telephone pole photo were models, or that the model of the drone was placed into the scene with CGI (very possible)??

[edit on 9/6/2007 by pjslug]

As I said before I came to the conclusion that I did based on the fact that I have spent several years in the animated movie business and have seen some of the most talented artists make many many very realistic models over the years. Some of my closest friends are some of the *best* CGI artists and lighters in the business. I have seen models photographed and cataloged , green screened and filmed, you name it from entire miniature cities to full sized pirate ships, and this particular photograph in my professional opinion is a styrene model.

Yes, I used to work for the TSL effects shop, and moved on to a parent animation studio once TSL got canned. I'm an engineer/developer and I stand by my accomplishments ,whether you choose to believe they are or not doesn't matter to me, I have many screen credits and am well respected in the animation industry.

However, for someone who doesn't believe me "at all" , you sure are being rude by now attempting to belittle my function. No,you cannot even get close to an industry spec color temperature merely by "pushing buttons" , nor using color profiles, this isn't how things are done in Hollywood. Period. The tolerances are *way* too tight. The automatic ones of today are simply not good enough either, I've tested them , and the colorimeters are so cheaply made you can never get an accurate measurement.

This is much more than any "TV repairman" would be able to do, as I designed the systems in use, wrote the code for the apps and engineered the connection mechanisms involved,I've written all the documentation and have trained the engineering teams at the major animation studios and post-prod houses on it's deployment. Sorry but your comparing oranges to apples here.

And yet, this was only a small part of the things I've done, hammering out bugs in all the major graphics software packages, etc etc etc...

Like I said, it was merely to give a background into my experience to why I came to the conclusion that I have. You want to pick apart and rip me for things you obviously have no grasp on, then fine, go ahead, I really don't care.

My opinion is the images are a model, that's all I'm commenting on, because that's where my experience lies, I don't know anything about the science involved with the claims in the documents, or anything related to that stuff, but I do know a model when I see it.

I vote hoax based on that. And no, I'm not "in on it" why would I come here and say I'm 100% it's a model???? Geez man, get a grip.

And, if you think it's a hoax also, then why the heck argue with me????

Cheers.

pjslug, how very nice of you to drop in right when Soloist comes back, thats great!

First you say this:

Originally posted by pjslug
I question the credentials of any "CGI expert" who claims these objects are computer generated

Then you say this:

Originally posted by pjslug
Certain artifacts, such as the lighting in the photos may very well be computer generated

...does that mean you question your very own credentials??

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that can detect that subconscious screaming from pjslug's and Soloist's posts.


p.s. not everyone can be good an actor/actress



[edit on 6-9-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by BitRaiser

 

BitRaiser, don't ever tell me what to do. I am not arguing with anybody. You Sir, are reading the words incorrectly.

I was simply asking him direct questions about his qualifications and his conclusion that these are models. PLEASE stay on topic, and stop making this about "me and him". It's about his POST! It is not rude to question someones "qualifications" when they claim they have them.

Stop trying to be a moderator.

Stop trying to be clever.

You are reading the words incorrectly - you were not being told to do anything - you were being told what some people's opinions are about the way in which you pose questions. It's not the questioning itself, it's the way you phrase it, which is rude.

And before anyone spouts off "it's about what you say not how you say it" then fine, I'll take that advice and be prepared for my responses.

We would all find it easier to stay on topic if YOU kept it civil. Stop provoking and then claiming holier than thou because I will pull you up on it every damn time until either you or the moderators see fit to take action, and if that means deleting my posts then so be it.

Originally posted by klatunictobarata

Now, concerning our latest uber-poster, Soloist. Upon initial reading, I really did think we had Isaac or his ghost writer popping in here.

Do you still think that - on what do you base this opinion (yes, an opinion, which makes your post an opinionated one) ?

Maybe you're Isaac - there are similarities, he doesn't seem to have much credibility anymore either. (Sorry, hope that wasn't too vulgar, just repartee to stimulate the mind).

[edit on 6-9-2007 by chunder]

Originally posted by 11 11
First you say this:

Originally posted by pjslug
I question the credentials of any "CGI expert" who claims these objects are computer generated

Yes, referring to the drones themselves. What's the problem?

Then you say this:

Originally posted by pjslug
Certain artifacts, such as the lighting in the photos may very well be computer generated

...does that mean you question your very own credentials??

It's a self-explanatory statement. I said the lighting could be CGI, not the drones.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that can detect that subconscious screaming from pjslug's and Soloist's posts.

p.s. not everyone can be good an actor/actress

Just another rude comment.