I have to place myself in the "fake, but a great one" camp. I was on the fence until about seconds 18 1/2 to 20, when the object(s) are moving up and away from the camera. It is fairly plain to see that they are too much alike, when I looked at the exhaust? glow or lights the words "clone image" popped into my mind. Nonetheless, a good piece of work, whoever created it!

Man that sucks! I thought they where coming to pick me up!

I think the fad response " CGI " should be over with by now?

what does " it looks to real " mean?

EVERYTHING(!) in this videoclip is Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI) using the so-called "CryEngine2"!!!

whoever still thinks that this is real... go to the cinema and see Transfromers (ILM)...

sry but for me it's ridiculous that ppl actually don't see the difference between photo-realistic REALITY and photo-realistic CGI...

Well, I never was into cameras and when I take a picture I just point shoot then maybe zoom it in and out then snap a picture. If I get something I get it, if I don't oh, well. I am sure there are other people like myself when it comes to camera's.

People see things (and like mentioned before) they don't take a picture because they are in disbelief for a bit.

I think it is interesting, Haiti and the Dominican Republic are neighbors so I feel as if we have videos from two different points as was pointed out earlier.

I and surprised this has gone 9 pages and SPRINGER has NOT poked his head in here yet or sent J.R or David here to have a talk with us on this.

Springer where are you, yahoo! Springer.....................................

Originally posted by TrentReznor
CGI this CGI that,

This wasn't done in some guys bedroom ppl. Wake up, and stop Screaming CGI can Cure the world!

I think you are underestimating the quality of CGI that can be done with a home desktop system.

Just go and watch any Series on sky 1
Stargate SG-1, battlestar galactica, and stuff and look how fake that is!

this cannot be done solely on a powerful PC with Maya.

You are comparing something that was shown on TV (no compression, higher resolution, etc) with something that was shown to you on Youtube.

We've discussed this a thousand times. Youtube videos get compressed like crazy that turns the videos almost useless for us to perform any adequate analysis to it.
The quality of the images are obviously not comparable.

Now, if we got ahold of the raw uncompressed video of this 'ufo film' then we could eventually make such comparison.

EVERYTHING(!) in this videoclip is Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI) using the so-called "CryEngine2"!!!

whoever still thinks that this is real... go to the cinema and see Transfromers (ILM)...

sry but for me it's ridiculous that ppl actually don't see the difference between photo-realistic REALITY and photo-realistic CGI...

the more i pan thru the pages no one on this entire thread has gave 1 response that justifies it being CGI or real other than opnions and some lense flare i believe its possibly real/ possibly fake dont know at the moment

nothing will ever be deemed true at least not once its been on this site people would either have to have a momentary lack of judgement or not be familiar with this site to put up any footage in hopes of getting any credability

[edit on 10-8-2007 by twistingtree]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by twistingtree]

I've never said this before:

This is 100% CGI.

I'm sorry, I never thought I'd be so positive about something but this just takes the cake. If you're focused on believing that this is something different, good luck trying to explain how it's NOT CGI.

Originally posted by EBE154
sry but for me it's ridiculous that ppl actually don't see the difference between photo-realistic REALITY and photo-realistic CGI...

I know what photo-realistic CGI is.

I have no idea what photo-realistic REALITY is. Is this reality that looks almost as realistic as photos? Because that would suck pretty bad. If I knew what this was, then maybe I could know what the difference is from CGI.

Could you explain?

Originally posted by EBE154
sry but for me it's ridiculous that ppl actually don't see the difference between photo-realistic REALITY and photo-realistic CGI...

Maybe because not everybody here has CGI knowledge.

I be the first one to say that when I first saw it I thought it was real, then some of the CGI people start to point things here and there and I get a better understanding on how can it be a fake. Then it does not help when the CGI crowd starts arguing between them.

May be guys with CGI knowledge should post their credentials when posting here that would help a bit. Or get label as CGI experts by ATS like they do for other subjects.

Or just write a book.. here is the title " CGI for dummies" I buy one for sure.

It's look to me and some other mods as if this is some viral marketing strategy for something. IMHO an upcoming movie.

Be on the look out for a big Sci-Fi blockbuster coming up in the next year to a theater near you.

I'd also like to add:

Where's the rest of the footage? I mean, there clearly has to be something that happens after the video cuts. The very fact all these recent "amazingly real!" videos cut off before the scene ends, it's really borish at this point.

O.K!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!!!!!


I dont know if this will work but i have a program that can take a YOUTUBE video and turn it into a format that will work on an Ipod. I think the format is Quicktime....If i do that would that help with Analysis problem???

Originally posted by Donoso
I'd also like to add:

Where's the rest of the footage? I mean, there clearly has to be something that happens after the video cuts. The very fact all these recent "amazingly real!" videos cut off before the scene ends, it's really borish at this point.

Rendering these things really take up a lot of time heh

Like you, I also find it funny that many of the people who say that this is real are the ones who are frustrated by those 6 minute long videos of 'just damn lights in the sky', but they don't seem to question why on earth the 'best ufo video ever' is only 50 seconds long even when it's presented to them that the 'action' continued...

Originally posted by danx
Rendering these things really take up a lot of time heh

Oh! I know man, I know. You'd think if this was a viral marketing campaign they'd have the ability to let their machines render for up to 2 minutes of footage, at least! But we're dealing with a single person (or small group) rendering a small scene, probably took them a few days too! Look at the quality, that's good CGI. Not good enough though.

Originally posted by triviumfan321
O.K!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!!!!!


I dont know if this will work but i have a program that can take a YOUTUBE video and turn it into a format that will work on an Ipod. I think the format is Quicktime....If i do that would that help with Analysis problem???

No, it wouldn't. What that program does is convert Youtube video (which is in FLV - flash video) into iPod video format (quicktime). Basically it's converting something that was already compressed.

Once it's sent to Youtube, what's presented on Youtube is the compressed video. What we needed was the video before being uploaded to Youtube.

My old boss used to do the CGI for video games and movies for Universal Studios. He would bring his projects into work on his laptop still rendering.

He would put the laptop in the corner of the room all day just so he could check on it while it rendered. Let me tell you I watched just one dragon image he was rendering take something like 36 hrs. That was just one image!

So I know if someone is hoaxing these it takes allot of skills and knowhow with patience.

ohhh my b........not the smartest with all that stuff.

I'll do some digging though.

I guess i don't understand the capabilities of CGI, but I have seen movies with 100 million dollar budgets they don't look as real as this video does. The movie clip someone posted earlier didn't have anywhere near the realistic feel of this video and imagine their budget As far as being compressed, the detail is there and seems unmistakenly real. Please someone who is not full of sh__ show us cgi challenged people a realistic point that shows this is computer generated. There is no way a single person or group of people did this on a PC. Just my 2 cents.