while developments continue,
Kudos to 11 11 for an outstanding comparison between a real model and Rajs cgi , thanks to HPO a dutch Engr..who created the real model and suspended
It demonstrated how really glaring the differences were. This has been ported over the ARC stash in my profile.
quoting 11 11
"I believe HPO's model further proves that the drone is CGI. It highlights the lighting issues even more (when you are an expert with light).
I will try to explain.
As we all know, light reflects. When an object is hit with a strong light, like the Sun, that object then reflects light back. This is why we are able
to see the object.
On PICT0016 there is a small shadow under the large arm, close to the main body.
HPO's model doesn't have the small shadow.
The reason HPO's model doesn't have that shadow, is because the light is reflecting off of the main body of the drone, and illuminating the bottom
of the arm.
On the drone in PICT0016, the main body is NOT reflecting this light, BUT IT SHOULD BE. This is a sign of CGI lighting.
In CGI, they call light reflections "bounces". You can choose how many light bounces you want to render. If you choose 0 bounces during the render,
the program will not calculate any light reflections off of objects. The higher you set the bounces in render, the more light will reflect off of
objects. Here is an example of a program rendering light, and every pass is adding more bounces:
he more bounces you add, the more passes are needed, and the longer it takes to render.
My conclusion is that the drone in PICT0016 is a CGI render, which has a very low light bounce/reflection setting, or not enough passes were done
during render. Even though the main body of the drone is fully illuminated, it is not reflecting any light where it should, and there is an obvious
shadow. This is a sign of fake CGI lighting, and missing light bounces.
A low bounce setting is common, because it cuts down render time, and you can produce images much faster. Also, it would take a super computer to
calculate light bounces/reflections and display them like they would be seen in reality. So it is very rare for CGI light reflections to match
Radiosity is the type of light that calculates bounces.
HPO Model = correct reflections/bounces
PICT0016 = incorrect/missing reflections/bounces
--There is more lighting issues with PICT0016. I will explain later.
The animation below was made by SPF33, and displayed at DRT. I think he forgot to mention he changed the brightness and possibly other settings of
HPO's image, so that it better matches PICT0016. These are also the images I used in this post:
There is a very important shadow that is going ignored. Here is the shadow:
here is only one object that can create this shadow, and it is the large arm. I know this is a shadow because in PICT0017 supposedly taken after
PICT0016 doesn't show that shadow:
The shadow is gone, because the drone has tilted.
However, in PICT0015, that shadow is there again:
This proves the shadow is from the drones largest arm/wing!!
What this means is, in PICT0016, there is very few directions the light could possibly be, in order to make the shadow of the arm appear in that spot.
The image below illustrates the only possible angles of light that would create that shadow:
Since we know the shadow is from the arm/wing, we can draw lines from the arm to the shadow, and estimate the direction of the light source. The
maximum angle of light that would display the shadow there, is the yellow line. This is because it is the end of the arm/wing, and if the angle was
more, the arm would not cast a shadow in that spot. The red lines are other possible light angles that would create that shadow, but they can not be
correct because it doesn't match the rest of the image.
This shadow also shows again that the drone has incorrect lighting compared to the telephone pole. There is two different light sources.
Once again, it is a fact that the shadow is created by the arm/wing. That shadow is very important, and missing from HPO's tests.
In PICT0015, the drone appears to be flying level, and the shadow from the arm is showing in the same spot as in PICT0016. This is a clue to the angle
of the drone in PICT0016. It appears the light source used on PICT0016 was level with the arm, and the part of the body that is showing the shadow,
which is very inconsistent with the light and shadows on the telephone pole.
It's the second smoking gun shadow problem.
The above shadow exists because of the angle of the drone to the light. PICT0016 should have something similar, but doesn't. This shows that
PICT0016's arm is NOT pointed directly at the light source, which is the only way to get HPO's model to look like PICT0016, and illuminate the body
of the drone.
As we all know, PICT0016 has a very large missing shadow under the arm. The only way this is possible, is if the arm is pointed at the Sun. But this
would create long shadows off of the fans/nubs like in HPO's model. This proves again, that there is multiple light sources used in PICT0016."
well Done AllisOne./11 11
[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sys_Config]
[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sys_Config]