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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

I just signed up for the Myst forum and will ask the experts over there if they can make any correlations.

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.

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.

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

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]

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".

Yeah in real world, but that doesn't necessarily apply to photography. It's basic 101 repro/product photography to get rid of highlights.

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.

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.

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]