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.

 

[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

page: 41
185
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
11 11, wouldn't it depend on the material if there were highlights? i kind of agree with the orange ones in your first pic, but not with the "most obvious" one - say this membrane like thing on the inside of that blue circled part were something like cloth (just an example), there would be no highlight?




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I can find flaws on this CGI render all day...



You're of course assuming it's cgi, if it were a photograph I wouldn't be at all surprised to not to see highlights.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Lama: I'm incling towards the DPI, etc (Adobe Elephants) to be attributable to the editor at C2C. I doubt someone would pay for Photoshop if they had Elements, since thats the cut down version 'home users' generally use, but as you say, someone who's probably used to rather expensive CGI software (I know some of its free and just as good, but I'm making a point here!) would also own Photoshop.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Along the "Myst" lines again, the


I do recall stating it looked frighteningly similar to a myst type of object when the photos first started popping up on the web.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Several of the weird symbols on the 'useless but interesting cos it looks scientifically valid'
spiral page match those from the CropBats or Crop Circle Bats fonts if you cut them up and spaced them out slightly on a line (one is almost identical, but the eld 'knob' is slightly further forward).

I didn't remember the 'gate' symbol from Oblivion, I wondered where I'd seen that crossed arch device before, great find. It's not exact but it gives credance to the fact this guy might be interested in designing fonts and imaging in general (CGI, Photoshop, fonts etc).



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I just signed up for the Myst forum and will ask the experts over there if they can make any correlations.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Oh, and forgot to mention that if it's cgi which tries to imitate photography then the absense of highlights is correct for such a photograph.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hiii_98
I respectfully disagree, the characters look NOTHING like the Chad photo symbols, nor does the Myst alphabet create a match.



Yes, I didn't mean to say "EXACT". What I wanted to say was that the images like the dot within the upside down U symbol can be seen in Isaac's photo. Except the dot is cleverly placed outside of the U. This is an easy modification. Would it be likely that we're dealing with a gamer who simply is familiar with games that have in-game alphabets? One could easily create their own text by mixing and matching.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
I can find flaws on this CGI render all day...



My thoughts 22 err I mean 11 11 is in a sterile or laboratory setting (This would surely be the case if this story is to be believed) would utilize light boxes. I know the CGI crowd may not understand conventional photography. Since the pruported year(s) of this event took place in the mid 1980's, convential yet very high tech film photography would be in play. Table boxes can actually be an entire light box in which you place the object inside in order to diffuse shadows. This method can be studied via a simple google search.

So your argument concerning shadows may need a little more work. I will also add, if this particular object were to be real, how would any of us understand its reflectivity?

You know all, we're in an age of computer-itis. This affliction makes the constant computer user unaware of real life at times. Hand a CGI guy an old 4X5 format camera and he/she will be googling their finger-nails off trying to figure out how to use it.

Point being this supposedly took place in the mid 80's. If this is indeed true, toss out your "today" way of creating objects and start investigating what was in play then......

Becker



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
wow you guys are really doing good on this hoax... I guess will be seeing this kind of stuff every so many years because of the Roswell Anniversary.




[edit on 29-6-2007 by XPhiles]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lamâshtu
11 11, wouldn't it depend on the material if there were highlights? i kind of agree with the orange ones in your first pic, but not with the "most obvious" one - say this membrane like thing on the inside of that blue circled part were something like cloth (just an example), there would be no highlight?
\

You are correct, it does depend on the material. But this object is already reflecting the light from the white background. If the light source is reflecting off of the white background on to the object, then you SHOULD see the light source "highlight", every reflecting object in the world has the "highlight" from the light source. Just look around your house.... find anything reflective and put it under a light, and look for the brightest spot on the object, it will be the "highlight".




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Yeah in real world, but that doesn't necessarily apply to photography. It's basic 101 repro/product photography to get rid of highlights.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Hey... I came across this on google from another message board... thought I'd post and see what you all thought. Here's the link it's from: www.theparacast.com...

I showed the link to a buddy of mine, this is what he said:

" (11:11:56 AM): that link..
(11:12:29 AM): the CARET program isaac hehe lol
(11:13:38 AM): he a freaking Computer animater that used to wok on the old SGI work station back in the 80's he telling you word for word in there thats hes a computer programer/ computer animator. ha he used to work with Wave front technology.
(11:13:53 AM): hes just a much older version of me.
(11:15:46 AM): he being funny about it making his job sound like some government work but ever company CARET ect is just names for Unix based CG computers.
Miah (11:16:35 AM): really?
(11:17:05 AM): yep
(11:17:21 AM): en.wikipedia.org...
(11:18:04 AM): That name Alias i knew right off.. because they are the ones how also had a lot to do with the birth of the N64
(11:18:41 AM): also where the term AntiAlias comes from.. in vidoe game terms .. means make it smooth. no jaggies
(11:19:17 AM): en.wikipedia.org...
(11:19:48 AM): Cart is just a function code in Unix systems its just part of a code base
(11:21:07 AM): all he needs to be know when doing animation on a unix based compter.. its part of a programming Language. hence the reason he said hes responsible for the "language" on the underside of the ship."

HOAX!

If anyone wants to share this info with ATS, be sure to link them to it here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Miah : 06-27-2007 at 03:32 PM.




Think what that guy said was legit? It'd be worth checking into.

S



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You're of course assuming it's cgi, if it were a photograph I wouldn't be at all surprised to not to see highlights.


No, just like everyone else, I am trying to assume it is real. But because it is missing multiple instances of "reality", and blatantly shows it is CGI, I am forced to point out all the obvious flaws that you people claim "looks so real".



Originally posted by PsykoOps
Oh, and forgot to mention that if it's cgi which tries to imitate photography then the absense of highlights is correct for such a photograph.


No, the absense of highlights is NOT correct. "Highlights" are BASIC ART 101. They are part of REALITY. Someone claims this intire object is in a "lightbox". If this was the real case, the shadows would not be so strong, there would really be no shadows, and no darks spots on any of the objects...

Step back for a minute, and think of an old sundial clock. If you put a sundial clock next to the object in the photos, the shadows would say 12:00 noon. That would mean the sun or lightsource is directly above the object. If the light is strong enough to make these shadows, then it is strong enough to create the "highlight" which would normaly be there in reality.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunalei
Think what that guy said was legit? It'd be worth checking into.
S


Yes I believe this guy 100%, I have a background in computer programming languages as well, like C++ and VB.NET, and other web based languaged. In the CARET website, when I was reading it, I had this thing in the back of my mind when he was talking about the "languages".

He was talking about how the "language" or "charachters" have multiple meanings and funcitons. It striked me right then and there, that he is talking about "Variables". Which are used in computer programming langauges to hold different valuse and different functions.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is what lead me to believe this guy is just using left over 3D models and story lines and history from a video game that didn't make the big time.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Highlights dont appear if a professional photographer doesn't want them there. There are multiple ways of getting rid of them, light tents, softboxes, polarizers on both the light source and camera etc. You only need to look at photographs taken of rare art (not just 2D paintings) to see that the lighting can be done so that there is no hard shadows and no highlights. It's pretty basic stuff.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Here is the link to the Myst board and the topic I posted:

www.mystcommunity.com...

Give them some time to answer though as I just posted it.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Highlights dont appear if a professional photographer doesn't want them there. There are multiple ways of getting rid of them, light tents, softboxes, polarizers on both the light source and camera etc. You only need to look at photographs taken of rare art (not just 2D paintings) to see that the lighting can be done so that there is no hard shadows and no highlights. It's pretty basic stuff.


I don't think you are understanding this correctly. Everything you said above I KNOW.

The fact is, there IS a shadow. If there IS a shadow, there should be a HIGHLIGHT. You can't have a shadow, and no highlight. There will ALWAYS be both.

Show me an example of a ultra reflective object that doesn't have a highlight.. show me.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Again not correct, you can easily eliminate specific highlights using polarizers on the light and camera. In this case the highlights would be eliminated on the top but the shadows dont disappear, perfectly natural effect and often desired. Here's wiki page that tells the basics.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I don't think you are understanding this correctly. Everything you said above I KNOW.

The fact is, there IS a shadow. If there IS a shadow, there should be a HIGHLIGHT. You can't have a shadow, and no highlight. There will ALWAYS be both.

Show me an example of a ultra reflective object that doesn't have a highlight.. show me.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 11 11]

Not always true 11 11. Here's a little lesson on controlling shadows by way of CONVENTIONAL photography which would have been the case in the 80's.

www.photoflexlightingschool.com...

Becker



new topics

top topics



 
185
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join