QUOTE:'I'm pretty sure this was an exercise. In fact, I'm positive I've read somewhere that the makers did it just to show off how skilled they are at CGI. I only remember seeing this because of the Isaac/Drone debate and it was brought up as counter-evidence to the whole argument that "it can't be CGI".'

Interesting....but it still looks way too 'clean' to be real. Very well done though..

J.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Interesting....but it still looks way too 'clean' to be real. Very well done though..

That's just it: It's not real. The exercise/skill was on part of the folks who could create the model, animate it, and render it. That was their goal, to show off that it's possible to do on a simple desktop with software anybody can purchase at their local Best Buy.

I'm trying to find the exact post that leads to the website that explains it.

Originally posted by TheSims10
I tend not to put alot of effort into believing these "new evidence clips", because to me they are far far too short to be credible.

I mean whats keeps these people from continuing to film after the "craft" has gone.It could come back, or we could hear some more reaction.

After something goes off into the distance, it would not be my immediate reaction to press the "stop recording" button, I would most likely scan the skies for at least a few minutes after.

Most of these clips are usually really short so the makers can limit how much they have to work on, and therefore can make it look damn good.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by TheSims10]

Ever upload many videos to Youtube? I have...and here's one of the problems... Youtube use their own compression alogarithm to squeeze the video down to a manageable size - perfectly understandable, as they have limited server space.

But, a problem I've found with Youtube is this: The longer your video, or the higher the quality (read file size here..) the more compressed it gets - until finally, it becomes utterly unwatchable. A lot of Youtube footage looks like this - just terrible!

The soulution? either keep your clips shorter - or record/upload then at a much lower resolution. Either way it's a loose-loose situation. But if you keep your clips short, but at a high resolution you get a far better quality product...

Just a thought..

J.

QUOTE:'Then there's the whole issue with: The palm trees and grass do NOT react to these massive objects flying overhead. They continue to sway the same exact way as with the wind before the objects come close enough to effect them.'

Well, what about the palm tree that's swinging back & forth like a teeter-totter?? You could hardly call that normal, could you?

J.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Well, what about the palm tree that's swinging back & forth like a teeter-totter?? You could hardly call that normal, could you?

J.

Which one? They all seem to be moving before the object in the video moves close to it and after they've left. They don't change in intensity besides the expected variation, nothing to show a craft like that with very obvious engines pushing on it. There's a bunch of tall grass extremely close by to the camera that is moving wildly, but, it stops before the crafts even move away.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Donoso]

Originally posted by Donoso
You don't need to be an expert on CGI to visualize and understand properties of digitally created footage compared to the properties of real objects in real footage.

I feel you are calling me an idiot who lacks ability to recognize obvious CG.

I can't read every page, but I failed to see anyone with a convincing CG argument. Most don't even point any CG properties out and merely say they THINK it's CG, which means nothing.

Originally posted by -Jaguar-
I feel you are calling me an idiot who lacks ability to recognize obvious CG.

How did you come to that conclusion? You're the one that's calling people here "fake experts" when there has been no one to my knowledge claiming to have been an expert! I'm saying that you do NOT have to be an expert to notice over realistic digital images imposed over real footage. When you walk into a movie much like the Transformers, do you walk out thinking that was all real? I know you don't and that's all I'm stating. A lot of people can tell fake from real even if they don't have a degree in visual arts.

While nobody has "showed evidence" to this being CGI, what exactly do you want us to do? All we can do is contact that person and question them. You can also analyze properties of the video which are obviously all leaning towards this being a hoax. (Short clip, no interaction between object and foilage, lack of human expression) So, if it's a hoax from all the other VIEWABLE issues of the footage, how can you NOT state that this is CGI? What is it? Models?

Originally posted by jimbo999

Cheers, but personally I upload video to Youtube because I WANT attention! That's the whole concept - getting it out to as many as possible
But then - I don't upload videos of UFO's either. But if you don't know the ins-and-outs of this stuff....it may be tempting to simply upload a shorter, higher rez clip to Youtube in order to avoid the video degradation issues...

J.

so just a question then, with this theory, do you think there is more to this clip? or is it that the author purposefully filmed a short clip on his camera that day, because if he knew this meant better quality footage to show up, because im guessing this isnt the case. I just dont follow the logic is all.

Originally posted by -Jaguar-

Originally posted by Donoso
You don't need to be an expert on CGI to visualize and understand properties of digitally created footage compared to the properties of real objects in real footage.

I feel you are calling me an idiot who lacks ability to recognize obvious CG.

I can't read every page, but I failed to see anyone with a convincing CG argument. Most don't even point any CG properties out and merely say they THINK it's CG, which means nothing.

A guy on page 2 of this thread - a self claimed CGI guy of some sort - said he was blown away, and that it would take tons of man hours and heaps of $$ to do it - and even then, it would not look this good. The jury's still out for me. I've seen lots of CGI, and some of it is very, very good. But to the trained eye, there a re still obvious give aways...

J.

Originally posted by TheSims10

Originally posted by jimbo999

Cheers, but personally I upload video to Youtube because I WANT attention! That's the whole concept - getting it out to as many as possible
But then - I don't upload videos of UFO's either. But if you don't know the ins-and-outs of this stuff....it may be tempting to simply upload a shorter, higher rez clip to Youtube in order to avoid the video degradation issues...

J.

so just a question then, with this theory, do you think there is more to this clip? or is it that the author purposefully filmed a short clip on his camera that day, because if he knew this meant better quality footage to show up, because im guessing this isnt the case. I just dont follow the logic is all.

All I'm saying is this: if it's real - IF - then the guy may have opted to keep the clip short to 'up' the resolution and improve the quality....

J.

im thinking marketing, most likely halo 3 which is out next month, theres been very little advertising so far and they did a similer "viral" technique with the last game.

the video is too real and too good quality for the media not to have jumped on it already.

Originally posted by monkeybill
im thinking marketing, most likely halo 3 which is out next month

Please read the whole thread (especially the last 3 pages) on why this is NOT a Halo 3 marketing campaign. The Viral one is already in progress and is called "Iris".

At this point I do not know if it is real or fake, but I do have a question.

Why is it that when a UFO video or picture is "too" clear the first comments are is "it looks to goo" and when the vieo or picture is fuzzy the comments are, "why can't these people take a clear picture or video?"

Lets face, it if this was real would you post it on youtube amongst the mentals posting videos of them jumping around like tits or would you take the video that is this clear and amazing to a more reputable source for $$$$

i think the other post (3 ufo's ) where these can clearly be seen as the last UFO floating about was a test to see what was a more realistic effect.

they gauged peoples intrest and most liked the third ufo best .. so they used this. for this second video

i think the objects are real .. perhaps the movement is the only thing that is fake ..is this possible to do ? take a real ballon? or remote control craft and make it appear to zoom about with computer effects, this surely is easier than creating cgi craft ..like most have said the lighting is to good.. cgi normally does look to real coz it is overly shiny etc.





[edit on 10-8-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]

I'm no CGI expert, so I can't even begin to speculate on that. But real or fake, this is a really awesome video. If it is CGI, then the top Hollywood film makers need to snatch these guys up ASAP.

I would like to find out some more info from the people that took the video.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by DimensionalDetective]