It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 11 11
With your "professional opinion"
why would they make both REAL and CGI models? Wouldn't it be more logical AND cost effective if they just did the entire thing CGI?
I guarantee if you study the Isaac images that you believe are "styrene models" you will notice the lighting flaws. All 10+ of them.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by 11 11
With your "professional opinion"
There is no need for that.
Originally posted by Soloist
You are asking me to speculate on someone's reasoning
Originally posted by Soloist
The cost is minimal in making a small custom model, even more so by someone with the skill who already has the equipment and tools to do so. Vacuum form machines, photo-etchers,airbrushes, these are very cheap as are the materials.
Originally posted by Soloist
It's much more realistic to take photos of an actual object close up than to do so with CGI. Especially something that will be analyzed with such scrutiny as this.
Then why did you say it in almost every one of your posts? I counted, you said "professional opinion" 4 times. Was there a need for it then??
No actually I was asking you to answer a question that you should have known from the start.
You see, for a minute I thought you were professional.
I was hoping you would say "Time Is Money" like most movie industry professionals.
I wasn't talking about the cost of materials alone, I was talking about the time it would take as well. It is only obvious that it would take less time to make a CGI model than it would a REAL one, hence the reason why CGI has become so popular these days.
Forming, decal drying, glue drying, paint drying, clear coat drying, lighting setup, camera setup, and just all the manual physical labor involved in the entire process seems like a lot of extra time (money).
With CGI, all of it is done within a small amount of time. There are functions and scripts that could automatically make some of the shapes we see. They can clone detailed parts and multiply them with simple clicks to make it look even MORE detailed. They can paint, decal, and gloss a CGI model all within the same hour, with a few clicks. They can even do the lighting and camera setup withing a few minutes.
I absolutely see ZERO benefits to make a real model, other than the obvious "realness" of the finished product, ff in fact, he/she is a skilled modeler.
I agree with that, but with the right talent you can pass a CGI model as a REAL model. To bad this hoaxer didn't have much talent though.
Originally posted by DocMoreau
Wow, this is still going on?
Has anyone actually found anything 'real', or are you all still arguing amongst yourselves... It seems like years ago that the 'drones' first appeared on the scene.
Too bad that the hoaxsters ran out of tricks, it was fun.
DocMoreau
Originally posted by blowfishdl
Yeah, seriously though! 177 pages?!?! You guys.. come on! If this was legitimate you think the government wouldn't have snatched it up in a hurry?!?!?!?! Use your brains! They monitor these forums like hawks on prey! Jeez! How about someone posts a new Drone already!
Originally posted by klatunictobarata
#1.) How would someone, if they wanted to make physical MODELS for the various permutations of the original CHAD drone, go about doing this? As in ‘where do I get the basic shapes/design from' and what do I make it out of (metal, polystyrene, foam, etc.).
#2.) What scale would they use, and why use that particular scale size?
#3.) How would someone support and place these models into the preexisting photos, or would they attempt to either throw or suspend these models (which look to be extremely fragile to say the least) in the various locations claimed by the photographers?