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.

 

Advanced image technology & 3D modelling from VIDEO..

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Video Trace:
www.acvt.com.au...

Image resizer & manipulation

www.techcrunch.com...


I thought this was relevant as from the Haiti video debacle, so many people are unaware of what's possible in CGI..this stuff will blow you away with some posibilitys and how a keen eye & knowledge will help weed out the hoaxers.

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong forum I could'nt find a misc/tech forum for it? Sorry




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I'm quite aware of it. And it's usually pretty obvious when this is used. But I've noticed that CGI can't match the effects of a low-quality video or a too far zoomed in home camera. You'd think it could, But I'm yet to see a video that has the same effects from CGI. Or at least I believe so



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Well yea, its possible to track such motion altho very tricky for now..but its gonna get alot easier with constant advances in software, Im not sure it'll be possible to tell much longer at least from a technical stand point. The hoaxers always either get too sloppy or inject too much dazzle into their creations which ultimately is the downfall. But dont be complacent about it..the rate at which software technology increases is astounding




Originally posted by EBE 17
I'm quite aware of it. And it's usually pretty obvious when this is used. But I've noticed that CGI can't match the effects of a low-quality video or a too far zoomed in home camera. You'd think it could, But I'm yet to see a video that has the same effects from CGI. Or at least I believe so



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
As the technology advances, 3-d rendering will be much easier to do than it is right now. The prototype software shown in that vid. shows that very clearly.
But, having said this, once 3-d software gets easier to use, I can only imagine how many more fake UFO movies will be showing up on You Tube!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Absolutely!!! there will be MORE & BETTER quality fakes its gonna get really hard for the UFO community to trust anything (even now..) perhaps Adobe or someone will release software that will know smartly when an image has been tampered with. I heard they have this already in the works.



Originally posted by Palasheea
As the technology advances, 3-d rendering will be much easier to do than it is right now. The prototype software shown in that vid. shows that very clearly.
But, having said this, once 3-d software gets easier to use, I can only imagine how many more fake UFO movies will be showing up on You Tube!


[edit on 29-8-2007 by wildone106]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It will be interesting to see what Adobe comes up with in this regard -- it's been in the works for quite awhile now... When they do come out with it, I'm definitely planning on attending some Adobe training seminar's on how to use it!

Can't wait!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I really can't wait until we can just render up a 3D model in ten minutes, photoshop it into a video, and Vegas it so it looks real. Heck, with the stuff they make movies with, organizations like Weta Workshop, we could remake the whole moon landing in CGI!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
.... Adobe or someone will release software that will know smartly when an image has been tampered with. I heard they have this already in the works.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by wildone106]


Do you think CGI could get to the point that it could be used for more malicious purposes? I mean more than faking UFO and making sweet effects for movies?

I don't want to sound too ignorant but where I'm trying to go with this is, do you think it could be used to frame someone of a crime, to frame a person of something like infidelity?

Every now and then you will see an altered photo floating around that makes the news, could CGI get that good?

Is that the case the a tool like the one you mention will be a great asset to have.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
Absolutely!!! there will be MORE & BETTER quality fakes its gonna get really hard for the UFO community to trust anything (even now..) perhaps Adobe or someone will release software that will know smartly when an image has been tampered with. I heard they have this already in the works.

wildone106, i'll show you just an example: se this youtube profile Here
Nothing personal against this guy, of course,
but he started to use vue 6 after seeing "haiti connection" performances (he admitted it in some comments, see dates), now is just EMULATING that "hero" called barzollf, even if this guy, at least, writes "CGI" in the tags, but not in the title.
I think this is a good example to show one of the many bad faces of the quick developement of the software.
IMHO, years ago, when many skills were needed to create a credible video hoax, whe have seen less hoaxes than now, that just a few skills are needed.
If a guy studies ten years to learn 3d CG, after of that he aims to find a good job.
If a guy needs just the time to download a software to start creating realistic 3d scenes, of course he'll find the time to "joke" with the hoaxes, and to do all the "experiments" he wants.
IMHO, this is one of the biggest problem that we have. Ten years ago, we could espect an haiti-level hoax only by professionals, now we can expect it by everyone with a "minimum" skill.



[edit on 29/8/2007 by internos]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
I don't want to sound too ignorant but where I'm trying to go with this is, do you think it could be used to frame someone of a crime, to frame a person of something like infidelity?


No question. Many years ago when I was attending a Photoshop Ace course/seminar, the teacher made it very clear that there was a sense of morality and responsibility involved when doing composite work. He directly mentioned a court case where visual data was found to be PhotoShop created.

As I've said before speaking as a visual analyst on many a UFO case, the tools that are being produced for making hoaxes are nearly level with our ability to detect them. It's not going to come down to how technically savvy you are, but what your knowledge is of light and shadow, reflected light and alot of other stuff.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Wow! Thanks Sir!

Thats scary stuff right there if you look it from the standpoint that people could be subject to blackmail, frame from crimes or get the reputations ruin. Forget UFO's, the implications of having this type of technology out there that can be exploited for some many things is in it of it self a problem.

Can you imagine terrorist using this as a propaganda tool? Showing a US tank blowing up a mosque or something like that. I think the government has to intervene and create laws that would severely punish anyone creating stuff with this software other than the intent for which it was created. Im not a fan of Uncle Sam getting in up in our business, but something has to be done.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
As far as I know, no court will blindly accept a photo as an evidence (unless taken by a crypto camera or such) and such exhibits are put through a thorough test by photography experts. Mostly negatives are asked. I don't know how they assess the truth of digital photos though. Ultimately its the source of the images that matters.

I've seen one incident in journalism where one reporter from Iraq sent photoshopped images of destruction to the news agency (probably Reuters). He was caught only after a few years and no one knows how many such images got published.

In the recent movie Die Hard, there is a scene when the bad guy hacks TV network and shows white house getting blown to dust. It looks so real that cops run out to see the actual building.

The truth of the matter is, 99.9% of images you see go through some kind of processing. So are we all doomed? Well, a simple rule must be followed - NEVER ever trust an image when you need to make a decision, look for other evidence. I'm following this since last ten years and I tell this to everybody I meet whenever the topic comes up.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos

wildone106, i'll show you just an example: se this youtube profile Here
Nothing personal against this guy, of course,
but he started to use vue 6 after seeing "haiti connection" performances (he admitted it in some comments, see dates), now is just EMULATING that "hero" called barzollf, even if this guy, at least, writes "CGI" in the tags, but not in the title.
I think this is a good example to show one of the many bad faces of the quick developement of the software.


I wonder his really good work wasn't done in vue 5 though, fear is his best one IMHO and I don't think he was using vue, al the vue ones looked fake.

FEAR Video



Originally posted by Bunch


Can you imagine terrorist using this as a propaganda tool? Showing a US tank blowing up a mosque or something like that. I think the government has to intervene and create laws that would severely punish anyone creating stuff with this software other than the intent for which it was created. Im not a fan of Uncle Sam getting in up in our business, but something has to be done.


I have to STRONGLY Disagree with this statement, using the blanket of "terrorism" is already being abused enough by the current administration to create a big brothe atmosphere and now you have to worry about using your imagination because it might upset a politician?!?!? Who is to decide where the line is drawn. OK so if the government makes a law does this then include video games?? Then the makers of GTA would all be able to be arrested on terrorism charges.

I am a firm believer that once you start censoring it all becomes a slippery slope.

Thank god we have a constitiution, I just hope the next president respects that document more than the current one does.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Torlough]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Torlough
 


I agree, and I said already that I'm not a big fan of having the government all over our bussiness, my point is this software can be use as a propaganda tool and you know how fanatic some people are.

There still people today that believe that the Haiti UFO is real and all the debunking and creator stepping foward just add to their conspiracy beliefs. So imagine how we are going to explain to some of the uneducated fanatic people in the Middle East that the tank was not real that it was CGI, good luck with that.

And is not only that, also people can get their reputation ruin by someone creating a fake video no matter if it can be proved in a court of law, once again is going to come down on how many people are knowledgeable on the technology which is not to many IMO.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I really tend to disagree most of the time, perhaps because I am older and grumpier, perhaps not.

What people I think are assuming is that a video shown like the example in the first post will have to consider is that, it looked like a hoax from the very first few frames of it. Perhaps that was noticed and shrugged off, first of all.

I have read about technology and what people think it may do, but it is only and still will be only an crude approximation. Anyone looking outside can rapidly see the difference in lightning, shadows, and image that I am afraid that no computer or program to duplicate in the first place.

Simply put, there is just not enough computer power to simulate reality. First the formulas used for ray-tracing are done to only make it seem that it is similiar when closer scrutiny will clearly show a difference. Sure, people get amused by such 3-D images but really it will never be the same as real. It is an inexact science and even with better algorithms, nothing yet has been able to duplicate real scenary or real (in a different case) musical instruments. It may even drive people to fix older instruments like cameras, musical instruments, even 8mm or 16mm film cameras to show a difference that the resolution of digital just can not acheive.

That's my take on it, and I do read about it, not merely looking over a program with advertisement or hype about what it can do, but with real examples already brought out by others. There even have been many books on the subjects over the years, I have read, and they just concede that they will not have the answers to make it more that what it is -- a special effect. Even models of the Universe with supercomputers is only an approximation because it is first a bunch of formulas that can never be Exact but will always be Uncertain.

A person just has to consider that all the aspects of such digital images just can not create the real reality. Digital is samples at a certain rate, and that rate can only be as good as the resolution that the digital medium can procur. And to me, it is not even close, and although one can hype about how much resolution there is, it is still very far from even being close. I mean there has been things done that offer 8192 x 8192 resolution of monitors and still it is just what it is -- a crude approximation.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join