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.

 

A 3D Look at the Stan Romanek Still

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by garyo1954
 


Nice job.
Having a 3-D view really opens up this picture. This must be really time consuming! Keep up the good work




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by frumpwallow
 


I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree. Does that make sense?

If you look at the Romanek still there is no doubt a shadow on the left side of the head, if you will.

And in both pics the light is coming from the right. I'm not into splitting hairs, or semantics.

Whether you judge that shadowed area to be curvature or a less lit area, the reality is: It is less lit for a reason. Wouldn't you agree?

I do agree those, wrinkles if you will, are cause by different values. Therefore the question I would pose to you, is how does one get those values?

See what I'm getting at?

If I were going to make a mold of this still, I would cover it with liquid Sculpty. Once the mold was removed you would have incuse and obtuse sides.

That sill is the same as looking at the obtuse side. Would you not agree?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I posted these Saturday afternoon on two other Romanek alien threads. Putting it here in case they were skipped over~~~~~BTW, really look at the negative effect one---scary! I also did close ups of the being's face....


ORIGINAL POST~
Okay, here is what I came up with...
original pic

after enhancements, effects:







This one is the negative effect--it really kinda scared me!!!!

Sorry this one looks cheesy, the contrast effect had the dumb filmstrip frame.



Night vision one.
Okay here are the ones that make me see a guy in a shirt (although no guy came up in the night vision or embossed effects,etc) Judge for yourself I guess....


I am sure someone out there can do a better job of taking the grain out.




Tina



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by garyo1954
 


i agree with everything you said there, except the last bit.

absolutely, the light/dark values could be as they are because the face is a 3d object, and the light is laying on it as such. im not disputing that. all im saying is that there is no way to make a 3d render from a 2d image using photoshop filters. the filter might be rendering the apparent contours because those contours are visible in the light/dark values of the image. but it might also be rendering the contours because of the way the face (if it were flat) is shaded, or how the light hits it through the window.

all im saying is that running it through a photoshop filter proves nothing. im not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that the premises are faulty.

if you were to make a mold of this image, either physically or digitally, you would get just a flat surface. it only seems like you can get 3d information from it because you brain can fill in that information from experience and reason. once a 2d image is made, even of 3d objects, there is no way (excepting perhaps obscenely expensive and powerful software that im not aware of) to get any useful or reliable 3d information from it.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tinaballerina
 


so let me get this straight. instead of suggesting that the still from Romanek's video is indeed a real alien, which it may or may not be, your proposing the solution is a "ghost with a punisher shirt on"....something entirely more far fetched than the theory that it is an alien. two ignorants do not make a right.

Edit...this is just my assumption based on the evidence you provided. please correct me if I am wrong.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by Mad_Hatter]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Has anyone asked why would he have a infra-red camera pointed at a window in the first place?Im a believer but I dont believe this one.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tricky63
Has anyone asked why would he have a infra-red camera pointed at a window in the first place?Im a believer but I dont believe this one.


Yes. Asked and answered. Go to his website and the entire timeline of video in his home is spelled-out.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Hey all, this would be my first post. I’ve was listening to Coast tonight and thought I’d drop in and see what was up. I dig the forum and can’t wait to get acquainted with everyone here.


A little bit about myself. I am a professional graphic artist, I’ve been doing it for 6 years and have well over 12 thousand hours on photoshop alone. (I’m not bragging I’m just giving some basic credentials.) I also have years of experience pre-dating that that I’ve done on my own time just playing around.

Anyway.

So I’ve read the posts on this thread and I commend all of you on the efforts you’ve gone to to analyze this photograph and I took some time to analyze the photograph for myself using my sophisticated computer system that I like to call “Telatran-One” and here’s the end result of what I came up with.

Firstly the original image, unaltered and in the raw:



Once I pulled it into ‘Teletran’ I first ran a few filters to sharpen and enhance the photo to check it’s authenticity as an unaltered photo and was blown away by what I saw.


Clearly you can see that this IS in fact an alien being from another planet.

Using minimal enhancements you can still see the reflection of the interior of the house in the window but the image of the ‘alien’ that came through is astonishing.


and here is is in negative form:



The negative looks normal. Everything is inverse, exactly as we would expect. There doesn't appear to be a lot to see. Yet there is a lot we don't see that is apparent.
And as I took the image into my photo editor I learned it is a one shot deal. No overlays or masks.

And the reflections in the window prove what you see is what you get. Had any editing been done to remove objects or items behind the being, the editing would have affected the reflection in the window too. _javascript:icon('
')

I was so blown away that I had to enhance the image further.
I then ran bas relief filter and the image obviously appears to be some sort of ancient hieroglyphic found in some Egyptian wall. Apparently we aren’t the first to see these beings though warn away the rock is. It’s obvious there’s something there.



I then ran the original image through the invert feature to see if I could further determine it’s shape in more detail. It is not human!

Further enhancements show the following:

It could be a poster sketch for an upcoming movie painted by none other than famed artist Drew Struzen:



The last filter I ran on it shows that the eyes are in fact reflecting in the glass of the window.


Okay so what am I saying?

I am appreciative of all your efforts and work but Photoshop and like programs can neither prove nor disprove anything by using a series of filters.

Any professional graphic artist who really knows what he or she is doing can easily create an image that not only looks authentic but also appears to be unaltered with a minimal amount of effort. It’s not that hard and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about. And if someone could show otherwise it wouldn’t be long before someone else with the right skill level could figure out how to do it. That’s what a good FX artist does.

Keep up the good work though, curiosity and willingness to investigate can only lead to positive results in the long run.


“freedom is the right of all sentient beings”



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Having once been involved in special effects -I will ask you to observe closely what your mind is not drawn to in the photo.

The photo was not taken perpendicular to the window.

Hence the dark outside (real or created by masking) can be used to advantage and the window (which seems very clean) can be used as a reflecting surface.

It could be a photograph of something in the same room, a few feet from the photographer, and possibly manipulated by the photographer (angles and distance from window would have to be worked out).

The point is, using glass to superimpose images goes way back. Some of the "authentic" UFO footage of earier days was done in this manner.

Try it yourself at home -use a sliding glass door -nice big reflective surface.

I am not saying I am not waiting for the video or any other information. But when I can duplicate this photo effect in just a few minutes of dinking around, I am highly skeptical.

Remember, magicians and other illusionists count on the fact they can get you to (in this case) concentrate on the alien presence -this forces your personal feelings and desires into the "target" causing you to ignore the other sensory input you could be getting.

The trick was already done -by the angles of the glass -but you concentrate on what you want to see, the image of an alien -and then haggle over it.

Perhaps it is not worth the haggle at all, as it is only an illusion.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I agree with that, it's absolutely true. the whole point of FX are to make you think you're seeing something you're not



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join