[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Also, I think that image 4 is CGI as well.

yep. #4 is cg alright.

shall i continue the search for the rest of reference images for you or is this enough?


[edit on 8-7-2008 by spf33]

reply to post by spf33



No that is good, you just proved my point.

With the image #4, the background color sample was blue. This indicated that the entire light source was blue.

If you follow this link:
www.flickr.com...

It says this:

The sides are lit with 6500K compact fluorescent bulbs I found at Target.

6500K fluorescent bulbs that are supposed to mimic "bright daylight" usually always have a blue tint to them. You can even look at this advertisement.

www.topbulb.com...

Substitute this 24W compact fluorescent for 60W incandescent. Produces very bluish, white light similar to daylight. Use in table lamps, floor lamps, desk lamps, recessed and other ceiling fixtures, pendants, and outdoor porch or post top fixtures (will not operate at temperatures below 5 degrees F). NOT for use with dimmers. Energy Star rated.

This proves that the only reason the whistle image is blue, is because of the light source.

With Isaac's pig image, the background has a perfectly white color sample. Yet the shadow is blue?? This is obvious CGI.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
This proves that the only reason the whistle image is blue, is because of the light source.

and what says to you that the a1 jpg wasn't also lit with a blue light, then?

although my understanding of shadows is the color of light source typically
influences shadow color from directly across the color wheel. i.e. the yellow sun casts blue'ish shadows.

With Isaac's pig image, the background has a perfectly white color sample. Yet the shadow is blue?? This is obvious CGI.

what makes it obvious cg?
do you have a reported 20 year old scanned photograph of an object in a lightbox that we can compare to?

why can't the blue shadow be caused by an increase in color saturation and or brightness from the original photo somewhere along the way?

and why cant the blue shadow be a from a mixture of colored filters?

oh, found #2.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by spf33]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Blue shadows appear as artifacts in photos all the time if the lighting is poor. It can result from Ultraviolet light reflection. See here (2nd paragraph on down) It can also result from non-optimal shutter speeds, as well as just a poor CCD (in digital cameras only, obviously). I have a client that I'm printing a brochure for and he photographed some fruit (oranges) and they all have horrible blue and/or purple shadows. This occurs more often with digital cameras but I have seen it occur on 35mm film or 4"x5" film photography, too.

With regards to your knife:
I haven't seen that picture before, but now that I have, here's my opinion based on that small size photo (I would need a more detailed higher-res photo to give a better opinion). It looks to be a real knife imported into CGI with extra lighting and shadows applied in CGI. I'm having a tough time determining if the drop shadow is real, if it is a naturally lit shadow. But actually, I'm not so sure. The carved text in the blade looks to be too clean and new to coincide with the worn handle... so who knows. If it is CGI, nice work.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by pjslug]

I do not know what prompted LMH change of heart, but if true, she may release the pics to the DRT, of course, according to August 11 today. when that happens, is anyones guess, but if my gut instict is right, more than the Grail are currently working the same theme. If Kris does have a book, well those pictures had better be really really good, to buy the extra time, as I am sure he will have a lot to say.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

Ditto PJ same here.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

reply to post by Sys_Config


Ok Sys.... Fixed just for you!

No, actually I had to make some edits anyway. I almost always revise my text after I read it.

Originally posted by spf33
and what says to you that the a1 jpg wasn't also lit with a blue light, then?

If you actually READ, you will see that I mention the background of that "a1 jpg" is completely WHITE. The R.G.B. value of it is completely 255, 255, 255. This means there is no blue light source.. If there was a blue light source, the object would be bluish, and the white background would be bluish, exactly like the whistle.

Originally posted by spf33
what makes it obvious cg?

Besides every single shadow flaw, every single missing highlight, and blue soft shadows that could not possibly exist. I'd say the "a1" picture has been completely debunked as CGI many months ago, and again today.

Originally posted by spf33
do you have a reported 20 year old scanned photograph of an object in a light box that we can compare to?

Are you kidding me? Look at the "A1" image from Isaaccaret. Download it and you will see the resolution of it is HIGH at 1768x1203. The DPI is high also. Please tell me they had COLOR scanners capable of such a high resolution and DPI 20 years ago. They didn't. I don't even have to argue that point.

Originally posted by spf33
why can't the blue shadow be caused by an increase in color saturation and or brightness from the original photo somewhere along the way?

If this was a real, un-doctored image, there is no reason for shadows to be blue, at all. Shadows are supposed to be the absence of light. Not the presence of blue light. You have to extremely tweak color saturation and brightness to get the shadow even remotely close to looking blue, and in the process you make the rest of the image look like crap.

Since the object in the "a1" image looks like a perfect shade of glossy black, and the background is perfectly white, and the shadows are extremely blue. It's obvious there is no major changes in color saturation and brightness, since the rest of the object looks normal.

Originally posted by spf33
and why cant the blue shadow be a from a mixture of colored filters?

Are you trying to pull any excuse possible? Get real man, why would they use "light filters" to hide the highlights (missing highlights), and color filters to make a blue shadow?? Why on Earth would anyone need so many filters? Are you ignoring Occam's Razor? Filter this, filter that, colored lights, light boxes, scanner problems, and brightness contrast and saturation problems?? Seriously... You are all over the place, this is getting old. Your agenda is obvious.

oh, found #2.

Cool yeah, I knew #2 was real, and #1 was real. 3 and 4 didn't look right to me, but I was looking at low resolution images that you re-sized.

Originally posted by Sys_Config
I do not know what prompted LMH change of heart, but if true, she may release the pics to the DRT, of course, according to August 11 today. when that happens, is anyones guess, but if my gut instict is right, more than the Grail are currently working the same theme. If Kris does have a book, well those pictures had better be really really good, to buy the extra time, as I am sure he will have a lot to say.

So let me get this straight. LMH is going to release really high-res pics of the drones? If she does, wouldn't the whole "hoax" label need to be re-evaluated by you guys? Surely you couldn't just rest on your laurels if new info is brought to light.

Originally posted by pjslug
Blue shadows appear as artifacts in photos all the time if the lighting is poor. It can result from Ultraviolet light reflection.

Ultraviolet light reflection should only happen outdoors, or with special UV light bulbs. Also, all visible light cameras have "ICF" filters that not only block IR light, but they block a good range of UV light too.

Even if the shadows are blue because of UV, that would mean the entire image would be effected, and not just the shadows only.

Originally posted by pjslug
It can also result from non-optimal shutter speeds, as well as just a poor CCD (in digital cameras only, obviously).

Once again, this should effect the entire image, not just the shadows.

Originally posted by pjslug
With regards to your knife:
I haven't seen that picture before, but now that I have, here's my opinion based on that small size photo (I would need a more detailed higher-res photo to give a better opinion). It looks to be a real knife imported into CGI with extra lighting and shadows applied in CGI. I'm having a tough time determining if the drop shadow is real, if it is a naturally lit shadow. But actually, I'm not so sure.

The carved text in the blade looks to be too clean and new to coincide with the worn handle... so who knows. If it is CGI, nice work.

I already showed a high resolution version, I will post a link.

-edit-

Here is the link:
img162.imageshack.us...

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If this was a real, un-doctored image, there is no reason for shadows to be blue, at all. Shadows are supposed to be the absence of light. Not the presence of blue light. You have to extremely tweak color saturation and brightness to get the shadow even remotely close to looking blue, and in the process you make the rest of the image look like crap.

Tomorrow when I am at work I will grab the photo I am talking about (with the oranges). Cameras can and will sometimes add blue to the shadows and the entire image, even though there wasn't blue tinting on the actual items.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by pjslug]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Even if the shadows are blue because of UV, that would mean the entire image would be effected, and not just the shadows only.

In the print industry, we work with CMYK 99% of the time. CMYK are subtractive colors. RGB are additive colors. If you pull CMYK sliders on the antigravity device with the blue shadows, you will see that there is plenty of Cyan in the overall image (black antigravity device).

Edit: Thanks for the link. That is a real knife.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by pjslug]

Originally posted by pjslug
Tomorrow when I am at work I will grab the photo I am talking about (with the oranges). Cameras can and will sometimes add blue to the shadows and the entire image, even though there wasn't blue tinting on the actual items.

A white background will be subject to any type of color change what so ever. My color sample done through an image processing program shows the R.G.B. value of the background at 255,255,255.

Any slight change what so ever would be detected, and would show even just 1 number difference like: 224,225,225 or something similar. 255,255,255 is pure white, and any type of special lighting, saturation changes, filters, or anything, would change the color of the white background.

If the background was black, then maybe your arguments would hold water. But since the background is pure white, nothing you say will change the fact the shadows are fake blob shadows, and blue.



[edit on 8-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by pjslug
Edit: Thanks for the link. That is a real knife.

Is it a real knife? Or is it a CGI model based off of a real knife? Or is it just pure talent? Prove it...

With bump mapping, transparent decal textures, vertex shading, and light-map burn-ins, and a killer render algorithm, it is completely possible....

Are you familiar with the technique where you take a picture of a real knife, and you use the high resolution picture to paste on top of your models mesh for the texture?

Adobe Photoshop also has DDS plug-ins made by Nvidia that do really good bump map generation....

Real or Fake?

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

PJ Thats an IF if she does, and its to her supporting group, DRT,not the public at large. I thought it would have been much easier to hire her own crew, analyze and report like whiley said they analyzed (as could be done). For all we know they DRT could have had these pictures all along given the close relationship, and are buying extra time, cause its not looking too good at OM. .but that doesn't change the status quo of the Hoax label. It will make great conversation for whos left in the wings, like us.
How she does this will bevery important , if its ojust passin to her buddies, and gettin a nod of approval, yeah thats the real slim shady, its not going to go down well, I think , with ANY of us.. But anything to release what should have been earlier, is still welcome news.

Open question..Lev mentioned that when he blew up the pix at ultra hi res of the petrol internal guage or PIG or IPIG, that it turned green. He does not know what caused that. any ideas? Nemo had said it looked like paint was dripping. "cough cough" Maybe that was levs model, but if it wasn't what could cause that ?
thanx

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Sys_Config]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by spf33
and what says to you that the a1 jpg wasn't also lit with a blue light, then?

If you actually READ, you will see that I mention the background of that "a1 jpg" is completely WHITE. The R.G.B. value of it is completely 255, 255, 255. This means there is no blue light source.. If there was a blue light source, the object would be bluish, and the white background would be bluish, exactly like the whistle.

no, i read. i just don't agree about the white background.

the object is very blue tinted, even this crappy gif @ 256 colors illustrates it well, or is your monitor defective? or is mine? in any case;



*interestingly this was done using ps cs3 auto color command on the original jpg.

Besides every single shadow flaw, every single missing highlight, and blue soft shadows that could not possibly exist.

i disagree.

Please tell me they had COLOR scanners capable of such a high resolution and DPI 20 years ago. They didn't. I don't even have to argue that point.

nope, my fault. i mistyped, meant scan of a 20 yr old photo.

Shadows are supposed to be the absence of light. Not the presence of blue light.

not even with the sun?

Since the object in the "a1" image looks like a perfect shade of glossy black

hm. i thought it looked greenish. or maybe it's those blue lights?
i don't doubt that the a1 could be black and that the colors have shifted along the way along with the shadow colors.

Are you trying to pull any excuse possible?

when someone finds something that i can't logically come up with a logical and possible alternate theory, then i'll stop. cg-wise that is.

Get real man, why would they use "light filters" to hide the highlights (missing highlights), and color filters to make a blue shadow?? Why on Earth would anyone need so many filters? Are you ignoring Occam's Razor? Filter this, filter that, colored lights, light boxes, scanner problems, and brightness contrast and saturation problems?? Seriously... You are all over the place, this is getting old. Your agenda is obvious.

no, i look at at more of showing myself potential alternate theories to the half-informed paranoid ramblings declaring hoax that are rampant here.

why would a hoaxer purposefully configure a blue shadow?





[edit on 9-7-2008 by spf33]

Originally posted by spf33
no, i read. i just don't agree about the white background.

So you agree that no matter what filter or light color used, the background should always be white? Wow

Originally posted by spf33
the object is very blue tinted, even this crappy gif @ 256 colors illustrates it well, or is your monitor defective? or is mine? in any case;

Yeah ignore the object in your gif animation. Focus on the edges of the shadows on the ground. Notice how they are BLUE!, even after you reduced the color count to 256 by using a computer generated compression most probably set to "nearest color".

Originally posted by spf33
i disagree.
.

Obviously. There is ZERO highlights on the reflective surface of the device. Your explanation for this is a filter. There is blue shadows, your theory of this is color filters, or blue lights. Now you have conflicting theories. How can you disagree that there is missing highlights? The reflective surface should be mirroring the light source, but it isn't.

There is only one reason you are disagreeing, its quite obvious now.

Originally posted by spf33
nope, my fault. i mistyped, meant scan of a 20 yr old photo.
.

If this is a scan of a 20 yr old photo, then where is the "wear and tear" of the photo? Where is the edges of the paper of the photo? Where is the wrinkles? The oldness of the image should have made the chemicals in the photo fade, where is signs of fading color chemicals? If it was a real photo, why didn't the light from the scanner reflect off of the glossy face of the image?

There is too many missing details, and to many lighting inconsistencies for even a child to think this is real.

Originally posted by spf33
not even with the sun?

Running from your light box theory now?? Running from your light filter theory now? Now its the Sun?? You are all over the place! You are conflicting your very own research and theories!

Originally posted by spf33
hm. i thought it looked greenish. or maybe it's those blue lights?
i don't doubt that the a1 could be black and that the colors have shifted along the way along with the shadow colors.

Actually you are right it does look like a slight greenish. But the black dome type things on the legs are always glossy black to me. Ive seen the images on 5 different LCD and CRT screens. So I know what I see.

Originally posted by spf33
when someone finds something that i can't logically come up with a logical and possible alternate theory, then i'll stop. cg-wise that is.

Well there is the problem right there! You are look for A theory. You should be looking at ALL theories, and combining them together to get the grand picture. As it stands right now, there are 100's more CGI theories then there are other theories. CGI wins by pure logic, and numbers of theories that actually hold water!

Originally posted by spf33
no, i look at at more of showing myself potential alternate theories to the half-informed paranoid ramblings declaring hoax that are rampant here.

The only theories you are looking at is the possibility of it being real, which are all DEAD ENDS. You should take a break for a minute are realize there is an unlimited amount of CGI theories that all DESTROY ALL OF YOUR THEORIES. Including the simple fact this thread is labeled [HOAX].

Originally posted by spf33
why would a hoaxer purposefully configure a blue shadow?

Purposefully? Who says he did it purposefully? It looks like a giant NOOB MISTAKE if you ask me. The noob hoaxer was so worried about making look like it was "scanned" that he forget to consider logic.

Originally posted by spf33
half-informed paranoid ramblings declaring hoax that are rampant here.

Damn you just insulted everyone who knows this is a hoax, including the owner of this forum.


[edit on 9-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
...
[edit on 9-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

i like your original post better. the chronic bolding added a lot of feeling behind your otherwise empty words.

aaaand on this lovely note i shall bid ats a permanent and fond farewell.

don't ask me any questions here, i won't respond.

if anyone needs to get a message to me, you know where to look.

bye all, good luck.

Originally posted by spf33
i like your original post better. the chronic bolding added a lot of feeling behind your otherwise empty words.

Originally posted by spf33
aaaand on this lovely note i shall bid ats a permanent and fond farewell.

don't ask me any questions here, i won't respond.

if anyone needs to get a message to me, you know where to look.

bye all, good luck.

You will be back, if not on your current name, you will be on a puppet name.

--------

Moving on... Does anyone think there should be a shadow under the long pointy antenna on the front of Isaac's device?

Example animation:


I believe there should be at least a slight hint of shadow under the tip.

But..but..what about the green pig ?

reply to post by Sys_Config



LOL!

I don't know... The pig at isaaccaret.fortunecity.com is the "bluish" 0ne. I have no clue why SPF33 tried to debate with a manipulated version of it at a 256 color count.

Maybe he ran out of arguments?

[edit on 9-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]