I've looked at this closeup for a lil bit now and I don't see a huge change. it helps to have the images over one another though.
I do see a slight darkening overall but no hard shadows. There are highlights poking through the center and hitting previously un-tilted parts
)o--- The tilted version has a motion blur so even if there were any difference in shadows, the nature of a blur is to blend those shadows. What
keeps me interested in pics like this is the motion blur has a red fringe to it. Commonly this is known as
I've looked at literally 100,000 photographs with a TON of different cameras. The chromatic aberation employed within this series is an ULTRA NICE
TOUCH. I know it's possible to do in an easy manner
but to understand digital cameras in a way
that the aberration becomes more apparent in such a motion blur instance compared to the previous image is stretch.. though of course not impossible.
Rendering from whatever engine doesn't auto apply such techniques and is once again a marker towards the reality side..
)o--- I don't see any argument regarding shadow or loss of shadows making any real sense because a render is a render and why would 2 renders have
missing shadows if a light source was the same.
The only immediate answer I can see is if the model rendered had parts or pieces missing the setting allowing the engine to allow or disallow said
shadows. With the skill level of the supposed hoaxters being called out here.. I doubt that would be allowed to slip through.
)o--- In the original picture series with the above images I see a white building and the light is coming from the opposite side of the craft toward
the building. Ambient light off such a structure could HUGELY affect the look of the craft. ESPECIALLY since the light source is throwing a direct
reflection it seems back toward the craft instead of being over the craft which would have caused the camera to display many more hard and dark
shadows on the bottom. A light building works just like the pieces and parts i have laying around for photographic sessions using natural light and
needing natural light on both sides.. I use sheets, silver painted white boards, you name it..
Ambient light is why HDR rendering looks so dern wonderful.( along with all the different light levels contained in the file )
Radiosity to a point employs a type of ambient light.. I would venture to say that someone with the skill level like spf33 wouldn't use Radiosity
for a hoax like this though.. It's a cheapo method and someone like him has standards.
)o--- The difference in wood coloring and other issues regarding color difference is expected. Unless you have a strictly regimented work flow, any
camera taking pictures from second to second may have changes. I've helped people splice panoramas many a time and this is 95% the case and I truly
hate having to match panoramic splices and is a lovely thing that current programs help with this issue..
I'm going back through the thread now and am starting to take notice of why people consider this a hoax. I still don't see CONCRETE proof yet. I
guess I'll have to go through and actually break all the pics apart myself according to people reasoning to believe it a hoax.
Does anyone know of a setting I'm missing that allows a person to download an entire thread content in raw form?
Sys: You have been a wonderful sleuth and I wonder why you keep on this if you also consider it a hoax. is it to finally uncover the
------------ Now some links I would like to hear SOME kind of comment on
and yes it's to the Earthfiles site because it relates specifically to this and I don't believe the owner of the site is intentionally helping to
perpetrate a hoax with intent. If someone knows of a reason to believe otherwise, please lemme know
Link to the page with the above quotes
IF THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE
Ring Drone Metal Absorbed Light? The material – I assume it was metal – that this thing was constructed out of was nothing I’ve
never seen before. It was 100% smooth and very deep as in when you looked at it, it absorbed light. It was almost as if it sucked in light around
itself. But it was a charcoal gray. It was very, very shiny. And I saw no reflections. It was shiny, yet matte finish, if that makes any sense. I saw
no reflections in it. I could not see myself or the surrounding trees – I couldn’t see anything reflected in it.
and this situation IS real, this explains ALOT about why some claims have been made to why the pics look a
certain way. Specifically this sounds like a perfect explanation for why something would look to have been rendered using a radiosity setting. Of
course with the possibility that this is a hoax and has been called out as such via explanations about using radiositty and so on.. this could be a
smart way to circumvent said debunking.
First time I've heard the concept of absorbed light though and is an absolutely brilliant
way to combat the debunkers if this is a hoax. I
would love to hear of another instance where radiosity and "absorbed light" were used together to explain the effect of radiosity renderings or
something of a similar vein.
spf33: did you also make this crop circle and figure out how to dazzle us with
your version of PI ?
Really.. please comment on this last link as well folks.. that is HELLA interesting.
Here's another crop circle I thought was an excellent match.. it's from 94 or 2004..
I'm sure finding the original again won't be hard if requested.
If this drone stuff is fake, I still have a lot of questions.
I had given up on the matter until this past week so
until I get confirmation either way from lovekin himself which btw is in the works
I reserve my final judgment.. or what i hope to be final
Gl to all in the finality of found truth