It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by roadgravel
Yes, I see your point. But believing in something does not make it an actual reality. People believed the earth was flat sheet but it is not. My inability to explain or recognize what something is does not change what it is in fact.
Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Why not go to your local library and get books on photoshop and 3d software apps. Maybe even learn it for yourself.Then you too can participate in a much broader sence within the threads. We no longer live in a world where a camera uses actual film, it goes straight to disk or cd or removable media. Someone shouldn't have to lay it out to you in "laymans" terms, because in alot of cases(especially 3d) you cant, it uses terms that are not from a normal persons vocabulary. Do you know what HDRI,GI,SSS,Diffuse,ambience,specular,bump mapping,normal mapping,Sub-polygon displacement, Nurbs,ect even reference? Do you know the difference between scanline and ray traced renders are? Can you tell VRAY from Renderman, or Brazil, or Final render? If not, how can you disscuss cgi(or something not being cgi)?
Originally posted by weknowyouknow
STOP USING YOUTUBE AND LEAKVID OR WHAT EVER AND SHOW ME HARD, DIVX VIDEOS THAT LAST OVER 30 SECONDS AND MAYBE ILL PAY ATTENTION. SELL IT TO THE NEWS AND OR SOME .
Originally posted by Farnswoth
The thing that bugs me is that the believers try to make up explanations for phenomenons they know nothing about. For example, if an experienced CGI user points out any flaw in the render, a believer will pop up saying that it could be the product of the alien anti gravity system (!).
Originally posted by jritzmann
Consequently alot of people waste alot of time, whilst there are good cases to look at and pick apart.
Originally posted by the secret web
Secondly that is sometimes very hard to put into words that a non CGI user can understand 'why' you consider something an ovbious fake. I dont mean that to sound condesending, but its no different to a boilogist having trouble explaing to ME something about the internals of a skin cell. Once you take the inherant knowledge and technical phrases away...its nearly impossible to provide 'proof' to people who aren't in the same field.
Originally posted by jritzmann
I'm to the point where I dont think it has to be your job or mine, nor anyone in the field of imaging to educate people in compositing, or CG's capabilities. I've always thought that people who really want to talk about the reality/validity of footage ought to have at least a semi-working knowledge of this stuff. God the time it would save.
Originally posted by SuicideVirus
To reiterate my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's CGI or not if it's unattributed or comes from an anonymous source.
Whatever. It doesn't matter if we don't know where it came from. At that point, the discussion moves out of the realm of UFOs and Aliens and into the realm of what's possible or not with computer graphics.