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.
Originally posted by 11 11
He was impersonating a law inforcement officer. Thats a felony. TY Come again.
Originally posted by Karilla
When did Isaac impersonate a law Enforcement officer? Or did I miss something?
Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11, you haven't proofed anything. I'd have to say that you've only reinforced my opinion that the images are not cgi. And when it comes to 'exif impurities' what you mean by those? Those pics had exif that shoved that the images had been re-sized for web.
Originally posted by -0mega-
Yarrgh you be getting a star from me.
Originally posted by -0mega-
Though I also thought it to be CGI, I lacked the knowledge to explain it to the mass on ats. (I just ''saw'' it was CGI ).
Originally posted by -0mega-
My idea on the adobe in the EXIF data.
He might've used it to apply the (HDR?) lighting that he used?
It sure as hell looks like hdr to me.
Originally posted by 11 11
Naa he just used simple Mental Ray. At first I thought it was lighwave, but I can see the false reflections.
[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]
Originally posted by PsykoOps
And when it comes to 'exif impurities' what you mean by those? Those pics had exif that shoved that the images had been resized for web.
Originally posted by -0mega-
bleh I thought that Mental Ray came included with almost every animation package these days.
Originally posted by 11 11
Originally posted by -0mega-
bleh I thought that Mental Ray came included with almost every animation package these days.
It does, which is why I am almost certain he used it.
Originally posted by Karilla....Dr. Edwards, as a student working at PARC, did figure out the real use of certain things he'd been asked to work on.
Originally posted by 11 11
I still can't even believe this entire thing went past the "EXIF" data part. Since when does anyone believe a picture is real when the EXIF shows the image is not raw, and changed? Its a joke, Ive seen way better CGI get called a hoax simply because of the EXIF data impurities. But this one kept going... geee, what has this UFO community come too?
[edit on 6-7-2007 by 11 11]
Originally posted by chunder
I'm not really sure how to do it but can someone start a new thread for the CGI / not CGI posts.
\
Originally posted by Karilla
Um, 11 11.
Just like to point out that I use a digital camera, but my brother does any prints, and he's a pro, so he demands that I use the Photoshop plugin "Bridge" to process the files from RAW. This allows much more tweaking of colour, exposure, etc. than Photoshop and ALSO creates an ICC profile for the image that is embedded once it has been processed from RAW.
ICC stands for International Colour Consortium and has more to do with images that are going to be output somehow, NOT for screen use specifically, and it's presence in the EXIF data of an image proves absolutely NOTHING. Sorry.
Originally posted by Springer
it is VERY EASY to edit exif data, thus exif data is worthless one way or the other.