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.

 

Is this real or not? Take a look.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I have to agree, it is a very beautiful picture!

Ok, my opinion is.....there is a lot of depth of field ie objects in the foreground are in sharp focus as are distant objects, although the distance is obscured a little by haze. The object in question is not so sharp and for this reason I don't think it's lenticular cloud.

I think the unknown object has either been added to the mountain scene or it was present at the time the pic was taken but, it was moving at the time. Look at the overall sharpness of the pic and you will see that the 'ufo' is different.

MH




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican
There are three possibilities. One, someone has seen a really nice photo and added their nice photoshop addition.

Or , somebody was at a location for a good reason and knew they could get a shot of something that they were expecting.

Or, somebody just happened to be out in the middle of nowhere and just happened to spot a ufo.

Or in this case, the correct answer:

The landscape is 3D generated and thus the UFO is a hoax by default.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Yeah I noticed the whole landscape was computer generated at first glance, glad others beat me to it.

It wouldn't take long at all to make that image if you knew what you were doing.

Proves one thing though, that our rendering software is getting fairly good. The close up areas are textured pretty poorly, but the distance stuff is quite realistic.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
It's a definite motion blur filter from Photoshop or another editing or 3D application. Notice there is no blur at all on the photo, but the UFO has a bi-directional blur. If the UFO were real and were moving at a high-rate of speed, the blur would only be to one side of the UFO. It is not, therefore a fake.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by pjslug]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Yes, any EXIF editor allows you to change or remove anything, including the application name.


I've looked into this before, and I had a hard time finding one of those programs that specifically said that it can manipulate the program name section of the metadata. Maybe I was just stupid with my googling, so does anyone have a link to a source that specifically says that?

(By the way, I'm not trying to fake any photos. I'm just curious about this so I know if I can trust that part of the data.)

Curiosity is always positive, it's the input that we need in order to find out more. Without curiosity there would not be knowledge. I will show you a technique that can be used to fake exif data, just for educational purposes:

1 - Find a software called exif pilot (www.colorpilot.com...)
2 - Find some original image, i.e. this one
3 Export exif data to xml
4 Open the image with your favourite editor, no matter which one
5 Manipulate the image, like this
6 Save the image
7 Import exif data from xml

>done.

Exif data for original image
Exif data for the faked one
Find some difference if you can.
I hope this helps



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
i'm pretty sure that nothing in that picture is real. The clouds look very unauthentic and the ufo looks like it was superimposed and then had a motion blur added to it. Even the terrain might be CGI, certainly looks like it to me.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
i'm pretty sure that nothing in that picture is real. The clouds look very unauthentic and the ufo looks like it was superimposed and then had a motion blur added to it. Even the terrain might be CGI, certainly looks like it to me.

They are all good observations, but in particular i liked the one regarding the terrain:yes, it could be CGI as well. According to exif data, THIS is what was used in order to create the image, so we can't even talk about faked exif data: the image is obviously a hoax, and the library used would indicate that the author of the hoax is likely not skilled at all, since everything indicates that he's unable to use Photoshop, or Paint Shop Pro, or Photoimpact or The Gimp (and it's not a matter of price since The Gimp is open source): what I believe is that he got the result in some RANDOM way, and that he's someone craving for attention, DESPERATELY.
For example, Ulead Photoimpact has some incredibly realistic effects, like clouds, fog etc., not to mention what you can do with PhotoShop filters etcetera, but he's so LAME that he does not spend his time in order to learn how to use that software, he/she will NEVER learn CGI. Fortunately, the most skilled CGI artists spend their time in order to make money, only lamers fake ufos: the more we ignore them, the more they feel useless and desperate but since it's what they deserve, everything is OK.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


The thing that really gives away the terrain as CGI for me is the terrain in the foreground. If he would have left it out, it would have been a little better. But even the atmospheric effects and fog are poor . . .

my guess is the OP is the inexpert artist responsible for this debauchery!


[edit on 3/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 



Woah, that was a bit harsh. What makes you say the creator was even going for a real image, or even that they wanted it to be displayed on a site like ATS? I put it up here, not them.

I was just trying to show how close we're getting to realistic from CGI.

I'll be sure to tell my girlfriend's brother that you didn't like his image that took all of 1 minute to build, and 4 minutes to render without a touch of effort. Also, I'll tell him that he'll never make it as a CGI artist and that he should rethink his life, courtesy of Internos.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Jesus, what is wrong with people? I came out saying it was a FAKE from the first post. I just wanted to hear other people's opinions. If I said "Look at this CGI image!" people would know it's fake. If I said "It's real!" I'd get banned for trying to hoax. So I said "It's fake!"

You all seriously think it's inexperienced? I'm a graphics Designer, not a CGI artist...

Maybe I should have colour corrected it for him, or change a lot of the settings... maybe even changed the blur on the UFO. You know, throw away a few hours. You've all probably stared at the image longer than it took to create! So don't go off thinking you know about art because to you it doesn't look real. It was never his intention to look real. I put it up to see which reactions I got, and don't think it's fair to mock the artist, where you yourselves probs can't do better with 5 hours, let alone 5 minutes.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4demon
reply to post by JPhish
 


Jesus, what is wrong with people? I came out saying it was a FAKE from the first post. I just wanted to hear other people's opinions. If I said "Look at this CGI image!" people would know it's fake. If I said "It's real!" I'd get banned for trying to hoax. So I said "It's fake!"

You can post an image on here and say "i believe it is real!" and not get banned. It is when you post an image that you KNOW IS NOT REAL that you run into trouble.

Technically, you knowingly put up a hoaxed image; last i checked, that warrants a ban regardless of what you were trying to lead us to believe.

But we saw right through you anyway, which is why I purposely made the last line of my post caustic; to purposely ruffle your feathers so that you would reveal the truth.


You all seriously think it's inexperienced? I'm a graphics Designer, not a CGI artist...

Inexpert means that you're not an expert, not that you're inexperienced. Experience does not always denote an acquired ability anyway.


Maybe I should have colour corrected it for him, or change a lot of the settings... maybe even changed the blur on the UFO. You know, throw away a few hours. You've all probably stared at the image longer than it took to create!

I doubt you created the image in less than a minute, and a minute is being kind.


So don't go off thinking you know about art because to you it doesn't look real.

i do know about art, and it didn't look real.


It was never his intention to look real. I put it up to see which reactions I got, and don't think it's fair to mock the artist, where you yourselves probs can't do better with 5 hours, let alone 5 minutes.

There are plenty of ART websites where REAL artists can criticize your work. This is not the place for it. Don’t be angry that the skeptics and image analysts on this site did their jobs. So get off internos' back.

girlfriends brother


[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Turns out that he didn't even make the image anyway, and that it came with Vue 7 as a sample image.

So effectively, this artist that you consider isn't an expert, managed to get their artwork to ship with Vue 7, so it must be pretty good.

I wasn't trying to fool anyone, so it's not a ban. I was merely trying to see whether people would believe a CGI image was real.

And oh look, back on page one... we have a believer, so it was well worth the effort.

It was 'photoshopped' in After Effects, so there was no attempt to hide the source program, or whatever that means. EXIF?

Also, seeing as the point WAS to compare real life to CGI, and not show off artwork, I'm thinking this place was perfect. Throw in a conspiracy about how 9/11 air planes could be faked, and suddenly it makes sense.

Learn some manners. When you insult someone's artwork, you're insulting the person, and you have no right to do that. I didn't come on here asking whether people thought it was a pretty picture, or to have the artist judged.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
And you can insult the image and artist as much as you like really... especially seeing as neither are me. The weird thing is I'm standing up for a person I've never met. I just don't think it's right to insult the artist.

It's like insulting an actor for one bad film, and then saying that they will never make a real actor, when in fact it could have been the director, writer, etc. It's very small minded of you. But then again, I've come to expect that from a few people on here. Now I have 2 more to add to that list.

And what's with the "girlfriend's brother" comment? Geez, even when people are telling the truth you people HAVE to lean towards doubt. That's sad.

But anyway, I'm done checking this topic now. We can keep arguing for days. You're not gonna believe me, and I can't change your mind. So I give up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join