Stay On Target... Stay On Target...

Just a reminder:

This thread is an ATS Big-Thread with 893 replies.
Please stay focused. Stay on-topic. Minimal or off-topic posts are subject deletion and/or a warning.

Remember, there's a whole forum out there available for discussing other UFO videos.

In this thread, let's please try to focus on the Haiti/DR videos and matters directly related to them.

Also, let's please avoid childish insults.

Thanks

Obvious fake to cover true UFOs at the end.
Sure enough.
Bravo people, I knew it all along.

You can't analyze lights in the sky, only palm trees and Galactica models.
Who can analyze plasma light from halogen car lights.

Things are getting brighter and brighter on the road and in the sky.

The question is are the Aliens helping us with car head lights or we knew
about how bright gases are for 100 years.
We live in a gas world, we should know about it by now.

This is a new trend. Instead of putting up real or phony lights in the
sky, put of an obvious CGI and avoid the UFO ridicule.




[edit on 8/12/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Provide an example.

I have those programs you mentioned. And, after-effects, final cut pro and adobe preniere and avid

i know what out of focus video is and i know what motion-blur is and never the twain shall meet

but, keep in mind that i've never debated the authenticity of the video and i always said i just didn't know

but, as to the process and techniques to make it happen - i do this stuff everyday, it's how i pay my bills. i've been reading this site for years and i been getting the newsletter - i just never needed to comment before now

i started posting because i saw people asking multimedia oriented questions about software and techniques i use everyday. also, i saw alot of incorrect speculation regarding how and if this could be produced

so, i've offered my hands-on experience

Originally posted by Jakzun37
"This very well could be a "viral" for the software company, created by the software company."

this is too sloppy to be commercially produced. you can't break apart any other viral promo piece and find flaws

unless the company deliberately made it look home-made. that would be brilliant and it would break all existing industry standards

as i've known this business for the past 25 years, this would be quite an anomaly

sure.

and, when you enable it, it won't look like what you see in the video - the way the camera goes out focus is different than applying a filter

someone who uses this technology would know it when they saw it. just the way it went out of focus is telling - filters don't do it in that fashion

reading websites and brochures gives you the functions but, it doesn't give you experience in how that function actually manifests and what it looks like

that's why i started posting - too many people reading about software they can't fully comprehend if they don't use it and know it intimately

i'm more than willing to admit what i can't detect - as in, i can't tell that the video is fake

and, i have to tell you the things i CAN detect - as in, that is not a 'canned' filter effect - it's a camera out of focus

Common guys we got to be better than this if we are to accept any kind of video as proof.

In the time that I have been following this subject for a long time and there is a lot of similarities that you are going to find with this type of hoaxes.

1. Uncorroborable source- IMO opinion all should start and end here. Put yourself in this guy(s) situation, what would you do if you film this? I know what I will do and I will tell you that it does not include YouTube. A dubious source diminish the credibility of what is being presented from the start.

2. Hit and run- Guy(s) put something out there, the person(s) is never to be seen or heard again despite multiple attemps by people that want more info. (Yeah the MIB got to them)

3. Falls short of the burden of proof- The burden of proof if in the person making the claim, you saw a UFO, I wan to know: Where, when, what time, who you were with, anybody else saw it,I can just go on and on we all the info I want from this person, sorry that just the way it should be.

Is none of this is presented then is already a dubious claim that should be taken with the max skepticsm possible. Don't let people fool you please, it hurts us more than it helps, we are all here I believe trying to find the same, and there is people out there that can give a damn about what we seek, they rather have a good laugh at our expense or try the new tricks on us, we got to be better than that.

AND did not even touch the CGI subject. Because I dont have ANY kind of knowledge in the subject and I know many here don't either. If you wont accept what the CGI guys are presenting for lack of knowledge, just follow the first three and go from there and make your decision, but make sure you have done you homework before supporting anything that is presented out there.

If it is something that can not be corroborated, then is up to us to analyze what is presented but you should have the greatest skepticsm already, by this point we should all leave our beliefs at the door. I know sometimes is a hard thing to do for some of us (myself included), but is going to be the only way we can see things in an objective way IMO.

Even this video that looks GREAT to the untrained eye like mine, it falls waaay short of proving anything besides the fact that it could be created in a studio.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Bunch]

good looking clips...

sorry, tho' - it's not the same and the difference is subtle and i've just been doing this a long time. i can see the video goes out of focus and it's not a filter

sorry i can't convey my view of 3D AND video production to you any better - but, i've seen the camera pull back and go out of focus too many times in my career. it's quite routine and something one has to work hard to prevent.

it happens a few times in the video and it's related to the zooming in and out on the objects. this can easily be duplicated by software but, the algorithms have a precision about them that i can detect

and, i do not detect them in the video

it's like in 'Final Fantasy' - there are some scenes that look real. but, if you watch long enough, you'll be able to tell it's not - because you are an expert in watching human movement. we all are, we do it all day everyday

but, the software did it's job of ALMOST creating a 'live-action' look - but, it can't fool people who have watched real people move for too long

that's how i feel about the video


i never saw the vue video of the trees tho' - does anyone have a link?

The real point of such a video and others i feel -

Is in the age of mobile phones with cameras - the average joe running around with a hand held camcorder thats way more advanced than cameras of just 10 years and less ago - and the desktop pc capable of special effects speilberg could only dream of as a lil boy.


It is inevitable - that someone - somewhere - is going to capture a very expensive and rather secret piece of flying tech. Possibly not the UFO some are looking for, but perhaps something boeing, or perhaps lockheed dont yet want to admit to.

So why all these emerging videos?

So when the real thing appears it will fall amid the arguments of CGI, hoaxes, and the truth will be so much doubted that its real impact and power will be lost to the arguments of youtube comments.

Perhaps the real ones have already passed us by in some of the hoaxes of the past.

Does anyone know about the truth behind the video actually being from Langkawi, Malaysia and not Haiti or DR at all? There's now contrary info about which one was up first. The Malasian video was reportedly over 4 mins. ATS has references to the Malaysian video and now all traces of that video are gone. The palce holder frams is the same one as the Haiti video, but it says the video has been removed. Google "ufo" +"langkawi" +"best evidence" If you have already addressed this, sorry.

Just for all your information, every single effect in the world, and more, can be done with CG. If you have a good understanding how all the tools work in a 3D rendering program, you can spit out very nice renders every 2 days. Maybe with only 12 full horus of labor involved.

Everyone asks "why", well its simple. PRACTICE. 3D modeling can be so fun and gratifying that when you finish a model, you don't care how much time you spent on it, you just want to show it off to the world. You will keep making more just to refine your skill's, or to add to your "portfolio". The more 3D models and renders you have in your "portfolio" the more jobs you can get.

There is a check list you want to look at when trying to find True from False on these 3D renders.

1: When you first look at an image or video, find what stands out the most, and what the video is focused on. Sometimes if it is focused on the sky more than the actuall object being filmed, that is a hint of CG. Or sometimes, the camera will follow the object moving to perfectly. Almost like they knew when the thing was going to turn or pass by. Also, camera focus. Sometimes the main object that stands out will be perfeclty in focus, yet at the same time the background will be in focus. You should always see a natural depth of field in all pictures. When they are missing, they are most definetly CG. Some people think they understand depth of field, but they don't. Its a physical accurance between lenses, and they should almost always be noticable. It is duplicatable in CG but a lot of amatures don't mess with it.

2: If that object appears behind other objects, study the seams where both objects meet. For example, when the UFO is going behind a tree. Study the edges at which the UFO and tree meet. This usualy holds most clues.

3: Then look at lighting, a lot are not very good with lighting, because people don't understand exactly how lights work. Lights are messy, they get everywhere, and reflect off of everything (in real life). But in 3D programs, lights are too clean, unless you get the right rendering properties. But by defualt they are not known to reflect off of multiple objects. Usualy the light from the light source will bounce off of individiual objects, but the light wont bounce from object to object. When shadows look too neat, or there is none in some places, or no reflections, or just wrong direction shadows, or anything that doesn't look right, more then usualy its CG.

Seriously. You give me a picture, and I will tell you CG or NOT. It's second nature.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by 11 11]

"What about this video, also done in blender? The camera movements do look familiar..."


to the untrained eye...


"What about this video showing an airplane done in blender, in a real scene?

Here's more depth of field examples with blender.

And these were all done in blender, which is an open source free 3d rendering software.

I'm pretty sure that the effects that you're talking about are reproducible in 3d rendering software such as this one."


I have Blender. I don't like it much. I have Milkshape, too. Don't like it much. I have 3D Studio, too. it's my job. i just produced a tv commercial for Microsoft, Dreamworks and the Republic of China and the motion-graphics for the MVPA Awards - (Music Video Production Association).

this is where the programmers and editors and producers like me receive awards for the latest Gwen Stefani video or whatever. this is a 'who's who' of the industry affair. this is in front of my peers so, you know i can't be a slacker - my skills are onpoint

no, i didn't win anything this year...

both jobs entailed 3D model design and animation, rotoscoping and video editing special fx/post-production. i did them alone in my studio. i'm currently developing the next sequel to the Resident Evil franchise and games for Disney Online

This is funny to me - having people cut and paste blurbs and clips about what I do everyday and debating me about it. I'm usually the one teaching (clients, employees) - so, this is an interesting juxtaposition

and, for all my skill - i can always be wrong - and, i acknowledge this. but, i'll have to be proven wrong before i change my mind here

Jakzun37 = hoaxer

So seriously, do you know what you are destroying when you submit your fake CGI models and pretend they are "real"?


Jakzun37

Here is a test. In 3DSMAX, if I had a box, and a cyclinder, and I wanted to use the cyclinder to cut out the box, what method would I use?

[edit on 12-8-2007 by 11 11]

"
Here's a short one showing more familiar camera movements and motion blur/out of focus, done in LightWave.

This one is a pretty good photorealistic video of airplanes, also done in LightWave.

And this is the 'LightWave 9.2 Community Demo', showing some examples of what regular people have done in LightWave. "


yeah

but, I can see that they're cg. i don't see the point of posting unrelated clips. we certainly can't compare the two - they have nothing in common, from the resolution to the overall quality and palette and lighting

posting other videos just proves software can emulate real life. it doesn't solve anything regarding the video - other than it quieted the people who said it couldn't be done on a computer at home

i always said it could

beyond that, those clips lend nothing to the matter

Originally posted by Jakzun37
This is funny to me - having people cut and paste blurbs and clips about what I do everyday and debating me about it. I'm usually the one teaching (clients, employees) - so, this is an interesting juxtaposition

and, for all my skill - i can always be wrong - and, i acknowledge this. but, i'll have to be proven wrong before i change my mind here

So what you're saying is that you can't replicate what's in the Haiti UFO video?

Since you're such an expert on CG and having won awards and all, I can't help but wonder how you'll feel when the video is proven to be CGI...

Originally posted by Karma2600
So when the real thing appears it will fall amid the arguments of CGI, hoaxes, and the truth will be so much doubted that its real impact and power will be lost to the arguments of youtube comments.

Perhaps the real ones have already passed us by in some of the hoaxes of the past.

I dont believe that will be the case, let me put this way. We have to be right once, everyday that passes we learn more, we learn how not to get fooled, what is the latest tech out there when it comes to creating pics and videos. the less ignorant we become the harder is going to be to hide the truth.

Only when you keep people ignorant you are able to hide the truth. I believe that one day someone will step up and show something that no one will be able to debunk or at least most of the people will agree that is real and that will be the end of it, because like I said we have to be right once.