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.

 

UFO photographed by Hungarian Military pilot.

page: 6
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sekter
 


Fair enough. haha.

Did the military press release this? Where is the rest of the video? Ask questions, is all I'm saying.
I find the internet as reliable as a politician.

I want to believe, but I need more than a water drop on a window in 3 frames.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The problem with skeptics is that they always complain about fuzzy images or fuzzy lights. But when someone films something crystal clear it has to be a hoax and someone used photoshop to put it in the photo. You see folks, thats why its not hard for the government to keep this under wraps. The truth is often in plain sight and people dismiss it as a hoax.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
How long was the no-fly restriction on Sept 11'th?
This was supposedly 7 days later. Was it a week or just days?


I think you read the date wrong, the pilot allegedly shot the video on the 28th of september, Which would have been 17 days after 9/11.

and FYI, the earliest people were allowed to fly again was 2 days after the event.
honeymoons.about.com...

I do find it curious that he waited so long to file the report.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

How long was the no-fly restriction on Sept 11'th?

It's really matter in this case, because this craft was part of the Hungarian Air Force. Air Force jets were the only ones that wasn't grounded after 11 September. Although this incident happened on 28 September, 17 days later.


I do find it curious that he waited so long to file the report.

Maybe he is just discharged from the Air Force.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
HI All, long time observer, first time poster here. Before I add my 2cents to this, I am a believer when it come's to the question 'have we been visited?'. My 9-5 job allows me to utilize a fair bit of software such as Photoshop & After Effects (before you even say anything, I have never used my powers for evil purposes LOL) so whilst I'm not an expert, I have a basic understanding of how thing's are done.

Anyway, back to the image. One thing does concern me about these. When putting two images together (composition), you have your back plate (in this case the sky) and then the hero object (in this case the ufo). The point here is they have come from different sources. To make them 'match' some treatment has to be done. This can differ from project to project but most will include colour correction and the key word here.. GRAINING. This is just my opinion but look at the sky. The photo has already suffered some compression which is apparent even before the close up shots.The UFO is so small at this point, you can't really tell. Now look at the close up's. Look at the grain of the sky versus the grain over the UFO, it doesn't seem to match, infact, there appears to be none (computer renders produce 'clean' video/image and grain is added after to match the video). There appears to be no grain what so ever over the UFO.

Just my thought's. Thanks for your time.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Willbert
 


There is NO VIDEO SAMPLE. I'm basing my opinion on the supplied reference.
edit on 1/24/2011 by Brainiac because: change of tone



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Sorry people... this sighting is fake. It's a hoax.

There are multiple issues with the images which prove to me that what you see is a cut and paste UFO, and the object was inserted into a real photograph.

My first impression, after looking at this image of the event, is that the object appears to be "on top" of the image and not actually "in" the image. The object doesn't appear to actually be in the scene.

The main reasons;

1: The depth of field is just completely wrong. There is "depth confusion".

If you pretend the UFO is not there, and you only focus on the clouds, you get a good idea of the camera's DOF settings. You can see that some layers of clouds are further away, and other layers of clouds are closer, and you can see which layers of clouds are in the middle. There is a very small difference in focus and clarity between the layers of clouds caused by the depth of field. The difference is so small that it is hardly noticeable, however it is just enough for you to estimate the depth of field settings on the camera.

The problem is, the UFO is way too focused compared to the clouds. The UFO doesn't seem to have any depth of field applied to it. The clouds, from closest to furtherest, go from less focused -> to more focused -> to less focused. The middle of the clouds seem to be the most focused, and you would expect all other objects to have equal or less focus than the middle clouds. However the UFO is more focused which is impossible. The depth of field seems to be right in the middle of the clouds, yet the UFO is more focused than any part of the clouds. This causes "depth confusion" because one part of the image (the clouds) are suggesting a certain depth, yet the UFO seems to be outside of any depth measurement. You can't tell if it is close, or far, or in the middle.... It is just there...

When pasting or compositing an object into a real photograph, matching the depth of field (focus) of the photograph is the most difficult task to accomplish. However it seems that whoever made these UFO images didn't even try to match the depth of field.... that is how bad this fake is.

2: The UFO doesn't seem to have any of the cameras natural noise or grain on top of it.

All cameras have their own unique "noise" or "grain" that shows up on their images. You can clearly see the noise on the rest of the image, however, the UFO doesn't seem to be effected by it at all, which is impossible if the object was actually filmed by the camera.

When pasting or compositing an object into an existing photograph, matching the noise and grain already present in the photograph is a very difficult task. Not only is the amount of noise and grain hard to match, but also the color range of the noise. It seems whoever made these fake UFO images didn't even try to match the noise or grain either.

THE SMOKING GUN

3: The lighting on the UFO is wrong. The color of the highlight is wrong.

It is obvious to me that the images of clouds were taken around sunset. The clouds have the familiar red/orange tint to it which is caused by rayleigh scattering. Since the volume of air that sunlight must travel through increases at sunset, the sunlight turns red/orange, and so does everything that reflects sunlight. The UFO appears to only be reflecting pure white light, which is somewhat impossible inside of Earth's atmosphere.

Outside of Earth's atmosphere is the only time the sun appears pure white. To everything inside of Earth's atmosphere, the sun appears yellowish, and at sunset reddish orange, because of the air and rayleigh scattering. The UFO clearly appears to be inside Earth's atmosphere, so the sunlight reflection should be slightly yellow at least. Since the images were taken around sunset, the reflection on the UFO should be slightly red/orange. However, the light on the UFO appears to be pure white. That to me indicates FAKE LIGHTING.

Conclusion:

The UFO was probably created in 3D rendering software, and the default lighting settings of software were used (default white light). The image of the clouds are real, and were used as the background image for the 3D render of the UFO. No additional after effects were added such as depth of field or noise and grain camera matching.

In other words, this is a CGI fake created by an amateur.

 


The above is a professional opinion / observation.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


Thanks for those clips. You have helped out a thread inadvertently by proving evidence of a smoke ring.
Chad, I think you better look.


Based on one theory of flying saucers I'd say the Tesla theory fits the ring.

With so much electrical energy, actually just voltage electric field making the Kerr effect,
the voltage just raises the ship in the atmosphere.
Perhaps just like a wireless elevator.
Well due to a build up of pressure waves at the speed of light.
I hear the establishment wants Hertz back but not in the Tesla theory.

Well Tesla is known for wireless so there is not much isolation in the ship.
Hitting the forward button just energized all directions cause how else could a
90 degree turn be made. All with no Gs or speed effect on ship crew or
passengers as all are under one pressure wave,

So far thats the theory wrapped up and ready for illuminati indigestion.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Do the shapes of the cloud suggest anything? Speed etc?
Any information about the pilot?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I have seen something similar from a far distance however. It was too far away to be anything else. I could tell it was very far away judging from clouds. Even some dumb people (no offense- I do not believe people are dumb, I just believe they are ignorant and/or too occupied by PS3s and smartphones to actually think about anything else) can tell distance of clouds. I honestly believe one can tell that a summertime cumulus cloud off in the distance is MILES away... sometimes even 10 miles at the least. You know the cumulus I am talking about. It is sunny outside but you see this cumulus that is almost twice as tall as it is wide... that means it is storming over there. They are usually mostly white and blue and have and orange/pink/purple highlights. That is a storm. Anyways, sitting outside relaxing one summer day in 2009 I saw a metallic airplane headed towards my area slowly. I thought to myself, awesome, a shiny aircraft. I thought it was a regular passenger plane, just shiny. I couldn't wait for it to get close because I have never seen nor heard of aircraft that is shiny as a dime(cent) being reflected by the sun. I didn't realize my own fallacy... I am intelligent enough to know that there is no plane that shines like it is made of some unpainted metallic element. Soon as it was there, it did turn on a dime and went straight back into the thunderhead. No way can an aircraft that we know of turn on a dime(even if it did turn) and shoot quickly back into that cloud. (ABSOLUTELY NO pun intended [but cool that it came to this in my post, I did not plan that. I was about to change prior references of "dime" to Quarters or Nickels, but whatever. It's not like this post will regarded well even if read.]). I wish I knew how to portray my thoughts well, maybe you would believe me more. This happened. Ever since then, I realized that this stuff does happen to people. I do not want to be joined with the many who cannot tell the difference between a meteor shower and get all freaked out. Rather, I want to be joined with the intelligent who cannot quite comprehend what they saw. UFO? Yes. Alien? Probably not. Balloon? NO.
edit on 1/24/2011 by pa.Frost because: Added an "o" to "to" in first sentence... "to" is now "too." ehhh.... I must be the only person who has ever filled this out.

edit on 1/24/2011 by pa.Frost because: My previous edit was wrong. I added an "o" to "to" in the second sentence, not the first. Thus now makes me not happy that I had to edit an edit. Is that even english (edit AN edit)? I guess so....



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 

Actually the depth of field is correct on the photo. Add a Photoshop unsharp mask to it to see; why. The depth of field is where CGI and Photoshop maniacs are used to fail, because they always believe the Depth of Field is constant, while it's not. Otherwise in CGI renders would have a realistic and nice 20+km horizon range, what CGI maniacs usually don't do to spare some rendering time. Photo maniacs are also used to forget this, because they're always aiming to create nice DOF shots, while on a recon camera, there is no artistic zoom to create nice DOFs and also they don't have to spare with the rendering time. So the DOF on the way as you imagine is also should not exist on a photo like this one.

So what you said is true... if you render in CGI or when you use an artistic high-tech camera with good zoom. But in this case it's not true. Just draw a box around the UFO and the clouds, then you can see, the depth of field is realistic (Add some unsharp, 220, 60.6, 16). This CGI trick is usually revealing every glitches if a picture is a fake. But with this you can see the colors, the DOF and everything is correct (Compare the UFO and it's shadow with the clouds and the surrounding sky with the upper mentioned Unsharp trick.). The lights are also correct on the UFO, because the light is also not constant, but it's changing on all three shots. Oh, and this trick is also revealing your missed grains, because it's there. If it wouldn't be there, it wouldn't appear.

I'm not saying this one is the real deal, but I also don't say this one is fake (If it is, it's a good one.), based on your DOF "Smoking gun" evidence, because the Depth of Field on the way as you imagine is only for artistic people and CGI maniacs, but Depth of Field never appears on reconnaissance photos or in the reality if you have good eyes (That sort of depth of field what about you're talking is not appearing on that artistic way in the reality as many sees in CGI animations and photos. Just stand up to the top of a tall mountain and you can see the horizon which lies 20km+, without any true background blur. Now recon cameras are also working on this way, especially on a clear day like that one on the picture. On a very clear sky, the DOF is also an almost non existent element in the reality.).

Sorry. I'm a pro CGI artist.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Okay. I watched video again. The video is gay. It is stupid and runs slower than Crysis on a netbook... but, what this is similar to what I saw. Mine hid back into the cloud... ASAP. WTF. I am not scared but overjoyed. Even if they are hostile, they are here dammit. Same shiny craft dammit. I am not lying.

It is not saucer shaped, it looks like a passenger planer without wings or tail fin. That is what I saw. I swear on my life.
edit on 1/24/2011 by pa.Frost because: (000)

edit on 1/24/2011 by pa.Frost because: I should minus the "r" off of "planer" but whatever...


The thing in the video looks like distorted images of human made craft, but what I saw was with my own eyes.
edit on 1/24/2011 by pa.Frost because:



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sentinel412
 


Sorry, you are wrong.

No matter what, because of limitations of camera lenses, there will always be a slight depth of field in every image. What I pointed out in my post is that you can actually see the slight depth of field in the clouds. The UFO is WAY TOO SHARP, and should fall within the depth of field present on the clouds if it actually is in the picture. However, the UFO was composited in the image and no focus or depth effects were added, so it is perfectly clear (it shouldn't be).. It's a highly inaccurate image.

Second, the color of the lighting is completely wrong. I said nothing about the angles of lighting... it's all about the color of the lighting. It does NOT fit the environment AT ALL. There is ZERO evidence of any Rayleigh scattering effecting the color of the UFO, however Rayleigh scattering is effecting everything else in the image. There is no ambient reflections either. The orange clouds and or sun should be creating some type of orange on the UFO but it isn't. The lighting is completely wrong...and THAT is the smoking gun, not the depth of field.

Also, the noise and grain DO NOT match the rest of the image. The only noise and grain existent is the noise and grain created by the compression. There is ZERO noise and grain on top of the actual UFO that is created from the uniqueness of CCD pixels and or uniques of camera film.

It is a HORRIBLE FAKE. Probably by some amateur. I could replicate it and do a better job of it in 5 minutes.

 


I am a professional software developer that specializes in graphics rendering and game engine design. I have developed 3D virtual worlds with realistic physics, and lighting, using DirectX and OpenGL. I have 15 years experience of 3D modeling and realistic rendering, and was previously a professional graphics artist that created content for video game companies.

On the side, I am a subcontracted video and image analyst that specializes in detecting computer generated or digitally manipulated images, and have even created forensic software that helps do just that.


Good day.
edit on 24-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac

Originally posted by Pimander
I'm not too hot on image analysis. One thing is bugging me about this though. If the disk was moving so fast, how come it isn't blurred? Of if the disk isn't blurred because the camera is tracking it, how come the clouds are not blurred?

Don't flame me. I'm not hot on this stuff. But I would appreciate it if one of you guys could enlighten me.


I'm a skeptic but, if he's in a fighter jet, the camera's supplied would more than likely be reconnisance type cameras equiped with high speed shutters.

I've seen pictures of aircraft travelling at super sonic speeds photograhed with no blurring.

Thank you



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 

Do you know what's the problem with CGI images? Everyone can say it's a CGI, because of the depth of field itself, what is actually not truly existing on this picture (Actually the slight DOF is there, but as there is no reference background, you can't say it for sure. You have a crystal clear blue background and you want to see a depth of field with that... good luck with that.). You know visuals are really tricky. If I show you a photo about a phone, and I would say it's CGI, CGI people, like you or me would analyze it on that way and would say it's CGI and this is a mistake and that's a mistake. The lighting is bad, the shadows are also wrong, etc, etc... It's well know problem with CGI artists. I also fallen into this once, just as many other CGI artists. Sometimes if something looks like as CGI that doesn't mean it's really CGI. Nature is not working as computers simulating an environment. Trust me. If mother nature wants to show strange lights and shadows it will do, regardless a computer, a DX and OpenGL softwares are unable to simulate it. Plus the lights are not good on the craft... heck, if it's really a UFO, maybe the material itself is also something what a material editor can't give back (Just an alternative, which can give already a different result. You don't have the slightest clue what that material is, so you don't know how the light should work on it.).

You can be a good CGI artist, but I can tell you, CGI artists are the blindest in analyzing a photo. I used to be the same. This is why I try to analyze it as a non CGI artist. True natural environment cannot be simulated with CGI. Even Avatar sucked because of the Depth of Field and the blur, which is always revealing the difference between reality and true environment.

BTW. The UFO is way too sharp... ahem... get a camera and take a shot of a 747 in the same environment. You'll get the very same sharp result if the weather condition is stormy. Before storm arrives, even the farer environments are seems to be crystal clean and very sharp (It's a well known sailor trick. If the horizon and the surrounding environment is closer and sharper, storm is coming. CGI can't simulate this as it's a variable what no one used to give to pictures or animations. Yet in nature it's an existing variable, which is already eliminating all the CGI knowledge. And as you can see the picture... it's stormy. So the sharpness is acceptable. The strange lights and shadows also can be explained with this weather phenomenon.).

So regarldess what background you and I have, you can't say this for sure it's fake. You may know how a simulated world works, but that doesn't mean you can apply the same knowledge to nature itself.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Almost 10 years and STILL waiting for the pilot's lawyers to figure out a way to "show the world" the video. How long are we surpose to hold our breath?
Another old case that went nowhere fast.


Bzzzzzzz



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Sentinel412
 


Thank you for proving that you have no idea what you are talking about...


Originally posted by Sentinel412
Do you know what's the problem with CGI images? Everyone can say it's a CGI, because of the depth of field itself, what is actually not truly existing on this picture (Actually the slight DOF is there, but as there is no reference background, you can't say it for sure. You have a crystal clear blue background and you want to see a depth of field with that... good luck with that.).


It's clear you don't understand my argument. I can clearly see depth of field effecting the clouds in the images. The problem is, the UFO has zero depth of field effects applied to it, but the clouds do. This leads me to believe the UFO was added to the image.

Also, the image of the clouds was not perfectly in focus, and yet someone added a perfectly focused object to it. This too is very obvious to the trained eye.

Depth of field can easily be simulated/generated by computer software. So can just about any optical effects. This is because they all can be, and are, reduced to mathematical equations.

Here is a simple tutorial on how to render depth of field with 3D Studio Max (a program that I have used for thousands of hours):



If I was to recreate the images in the original post. I would first create the UFO using a sphere mesh. I would scale the sphere on the Z axis so that it is more flat like a pancake. I would apply a material to the mesh with a default grey color, and increase the specular level and glossiness. I would create a colored light source with a color that closely matches the highlights on the clouds. I would change the environment background to show the cloud image. Then before I render it with light tracer algorithms, I would create a camera and apply the correct lens settings like focal length, etc., and then apply effects such as depth of field shown above (which will not apply to the background image, only the UFO). Then I would move the camera around until the UFO and the depth of field blended perfectly with the depth of field already present in the background image. I wouldn't stop tweaking the camera settings until the UFO appeared to be equally focused as the preexisting image.

To me, it appears whoever made these FAKE UFO images didn't bother to add ANY depth of field effects, even though there is slight depth of field effect present in the cloud images. They didn't even try to match the amount of focus in the image. This is an amateur mistake... which leads me to believe these fake images were made by an amateur.

Also, if you a graphics programmer like my self, you could create your own 3D render application using DirectX and simulate depth of field in real time.... and or pretty much any effect in the world if you wanted. Similar to this:





Originally posted by Sentinel412
You know visuals are really tricky. If I show you a photo about a phone, and I would say it's CGI, CGI people, like you or me would analyze it on that way and would say it's CGI and this is a mistake and that's a mistake. The lighting is bad, the shadows are also wrong, etc, etc... It's well know problem with CGI artists. I also fallen into this once, just as many other CGI artists. Sometimes if something looks like as CGI that doesn't mean it's really CGI.


Spare your lecture.... please.... a real artist can tell the difference between real and fake easily. I am not just a CGI artist either... My knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc., is vast.



Originally posted by Sentinel412
Nature is not working as computers simulating an environment. Trust me. If mother nature wants to show strange lights and shadows it will do, regardless a computer, a DX and OpenGL softwares are unable to simulate it.


That is completely wrong.... the entire visible universe can be reduced to mathematical equations which can be calculated by computers. With a powerful enough computer, you can simulate anything. In fact, the only thing holding us back as of now is the speed of our computers and time, not the ability. All light and shadows can be calculated and simulated.

There already exists software which calculates EVERY SINGLE PHOTON in a scene, and can simulate reality.



Originally posted by Sentinel412
Plus the lights are not good on the craft... heck, if it's really a UFO, maybe the material itself is also something what a material editor can't give back (Just an alternative, which can give already a different result. You don't have the slightest clue what that material is, so you don't know how the light should work on it.).


That is a common cop-out argument when discussing UFOs. When someone says "you don't know what technology they use", or "you don't know what it's made out of", etc., it's just a cop-out argument. Pretty much any CGI UFO could be argued using that logic. I could take a picture of clouds, then digitally insert some blob of color, and then claim "it's an alien UFO! You don't know what technology they have so you can't disprove it!". It's a weak argument...



Originally posted by Sentinel412
You can be a good CGI artist, but I can tell you, CGI artists are the blindest in analyzing a photo.


That is your own flawed opinion. Speak for your self.


Originally posted by Sentinel412
I used to be the same. This is why I try to analyze it as a non CGI artist.




Try to analyze it from a scientific point of view like I did.


Originally posted by Sentinel412
True natural environment cannot be simulated with CGI.


Wrong, so very wrong.


Originally posted by Sentinel412
Even Avatar sucked because of the Depth of Field and the blur, which is always revealing the difference between reality and true environment.


Now you are just talking rubbish. The movie Avatar had absolutely no problems with simplistic optical effects such as depth of field and focus.

Depth of field and blur is easily replicated by computer graphics. The problem with this UFO sighting is that they didn't use any!


Originally posted by Sentinel412
BTW. The UFO is way too sharp... ahem... get a camera and take a shot of a 747 in the same environment. You'll get the very same sharp result if the weather condition is stormy. Before storm arrives, even the farer environments are seems to be crystal clean and very sharp (It's a well known sailor trick. If the horizon and the surrounding environment is closer and sharper, storm is coming. CGI can't simulate this as it's a variable what no one used to give to pictures or animations. Yet in nature it's an existing variable, which is already eliminating all the CGI knowledge. And as you can see the picture... it's stormy. So the sharpness is acceptable. The strange lights and shadows also can be explained with this weather phenomenon.).


No... just no...

I am saying the UFO is too sharp compared to the rest of the image. You can actually see the focal point using the clouds. The UFO is not in the focal point, and if it was, it is sharper than any other point in the image which too is in the focal point...

It has nothing to do with the weather..



Originally posted by Sentinel412
So regarldess what background you and I have, you can't say this for sure it's fake. You may know how a simulated world works, but that doesn't mean you can apply the same knowledge to nature itself.


I have a vast knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc.... I am a professional video and image analyst. Not just an artist, and a computer graphics expert.

Watching you struggle to defend this FAKE UFO is quite entertaining. Personally, I can tell the images are 100% fake.... It is easy for me to spot unrealistic images because I understand reality and I pay attention to details. I have never been wrong either.
edit on 25-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

There is one problem with CGI artists. Their profession is usually go into their head and they can't make difference between their simulated world and the real one. Your responses are pretty good examples.


My knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc., is vast.

But you don't have any knowledge about natural environment itself. No CGI artist usually has. So spare the lecture. Until you don't have the slightest clue how the REAL world truly works, you can tell everyone you're good in simulated worlds. But this is what you can't understand... the real world is NOT a simulated world. So your CGI skills are hardly meaning anything in a real world discussion.


There already exists software which calculates EVERY SINGLE PHOTON in a scene, and can simulate reality.

Trillions of photons that are existing in a sunset? I highly doubt that. Please don't try to tell me something what is not true. Simulated world is never going to be like our one.



Now you are just talking rubbish. The movie Avatar had absolutely no problems with simplistic optical effects such as depth of field and focus.

Wrong. It sucked. I believe you're wearing glasses. If yes, that's explaining why it's not sucked. That visuals are presented how a man with glasses can see the horizon. With good eyes, the horizon and the background has a different view and a quite different sharpness (Especially in an atmosphere what Avatar had.).


Try to analyze it from a scientific point of view like I did.

Another prime example of a "my profession went into my head" type of artist. No, you did not. If your would do a scientific approach, the next two points what I quoted wouldn't exist (These are not scientific answers, just blind "I know everything because I'm an artist.". You're just an artist, nothing more. But you're far away to give scientific point of view about anything. This is what about I talked above.


No... just no...

Because you can't explain? Actually that's an existing element, what about many CGI artist doesn't know at all. Try the following method what I said. Go down near a lake or into a gulf and if the other side will be sharper, like if it would be a fake picture, and the other side also seems to be closer then as it is in the reality, storm comes (Oh, and in the meantime the sky seems blured). It's clear that you're a pro in a simulated world, but you don't have the slightest clue how nature truly works. Simulated world is NOT equal with reality. This optical illusion is existing in the reality. It's a natural phenomenon.


It's a weak argument...

No. Actually it's a pretty logical argument, what you can't explain. But what is cannot be simulated in a pipeline, that one cannot exist at all. That's the problem with CGI artists in general.


I have a vast knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc.... I am a professional video and image analyst. Not just an artist, and a computer graphics expert.

You can be an expert in these field, but nature itself alone is killing your knowledge in few cases within a nano. This case that I mentioned above (Storm is coming, picture is sharper, looks fake) is doing that immediately. That's what you can't understand and this is why you can't be accepted as a credible source in photo analyzis.


Watching you struggle to defend this FAKE UFO is quite entertaining.

Watching that you're trying to present yourself as an almighty, who knows everything is also entertaining, because CGI artists with big mouth are usually clowns. I know many in the industry who believes if they can create a simulated world, they already know how it works. No, they don't. Although I'm not defending this picture, but as there are elements in your analyzis what is completely wrong, in this case your proof is also invalid as there are cases WHEN objects are this sharp in an environment (Something what about it seems you never heard, yet it's existing.).


Personally, I can tell the images are 100% fake.... It is easy for me to spot unrealistic images because I understand reality and I pay attention to details. I have never been wrong either.

Or just your ulitmate pride never accepted it, when you was wrong. CGI artists are always telling this, then a simple test can take them out anytime. So never say never, because if I would want to prove that you don't know anything about how nature works, and you can't make a true difference between simulation and reality, I would be able to do anytime as I did with similar fellow CGI artists, when their mouth was too big, like yours. But it's not my task to prove your foolishness and trash your reputation. But it can be done within two minutes.

Oh, and if you believe that "professional words" what only you and I can understand here is making you real professional and credible... well, here is the news; using pro words in an argument to shine your knowledge is just making you as a true clown.

Have a nice day.

P.S.: One last thing. Your second video is presenting exactly what is wrong with CGI artists and their depth of field. If you have good eyes, the depth of field is existing on the way as you see right in the very beginning, where is no great blur on the objects in the background as within this range where those rabbits are this depth of field is not truly existing for people with good eyes. Almost all of them will have the very same sharpness with very limited difference. If your eyes are bad 1+ dioptre and above, you'll see everything on the way as it's presented during the setup. Blurred things in the background. 1+ dioptre is meaning your eyes are working 70% instead of 100%. That missing 30% is making the difference and causing this depth of field blur, which is realistic for you, but it's not realistic at all for those who have good eyes.
edit on 25-1-2011 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentinel412
There is one problem with CGI artists. Their profession is usually go into their head and they can't make difference between their simulated world and the real one. Your responses are pretty good examples.


Thank you for proving once again you are clueless and have no idea what you are talking about. On top of that you are being condescending to all artists who use computers for their medium.

Didn't you claim to be a CGI artist?

My profession involves studying reality, and trying to simulate it on a computer. So you have NO IDEA AT ALL what the heck you are talking about. I know more about reality then you will ever know.


Originally posted by Sentinel412

My knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc., is vast.

But you don't have any knowledge about natural environment itself. No CGI artist usually has. So spare the lecture. Until you don't have the slightest clue how the REAL world truly works, you can tell everyone you're good in simulated worlds. But this is what you can't understand... the real world is NOT a simulated world. So your CGI skills are hardly meaning anything in a real world discussion.


What a clueless troll you turned out to be.

You have no idea what my background is, or what I know about the natural environment. I study physics... I am first a scientist, second a computer graphics specialist. I create software that simulates reality the best it can. I study reality and every detail in reality, and try to duplicate it. Ever herd of computational physics?

You sir, are lost and confused.


Originally posted by Sentinel412
Trillions of photons that are existing in a sunset? I highly doubt that. Please don't try to tell me something what is not true. Simulated world is never going to be like our one.


Again you prove you have ZERO experience with computer programming, and or scientific simulations of reality. Yes, EVERY PHOTON.... even in a sunset.

Refraction, reflection, and wavelength changes all can be calculated and simulated. And yes, some day the simulated world will be indistinguishable from reality. That is when our computers are fast enough to do every calculation.

All scientific phenomena can be reduced to mathematical equations which are computed by computers. Since you don't know that, there is basically no reason for me to continue talking with you until you educate your self.


Originally posted by Sentinel412

Now you are just talking rubbish. The movie Avatar had absolutely no problems with simplistic optical effects such as depth of field and focus.

Wrong. It sucked. I believe you're wearing glasses. If yes, that's explaining why it's not sucked. That visuals are presented how a man with glasses can see the horizon. With good eyes, the horizon and the background has a different view and a quite different sharpness (Especially in an atmosphere what Avatar had.).


How old are you??? What you said was idiotic.

Do you know ANYTHING about how human eyes work? Even human eyes suffer from depth of field. Close one eye, put your hand up in front of your face. Look at your hand and everything behind it will be blurry. Then look at everything behind your hand, and your hand will be blurry. You are changing the focal point..... The OP's images don't seem to have a clear focal point. In fact, it seems there is TWO focal points, which prove the image is FAKE.

Yes some cameras have "infinite" depth of field, so the entire image could appear perfectly clear no matter the distance. However, in the OP's images, this does not seem to be the case... the UFO seems to be the most clear object, and the clouds are not clear. This would suggest depth of field to the uneducated, but I can actually see depth of field in the clouds independent of the UFO. The closer clouds are blurry and the middle clouds are clear, and the further clouds are slightly blurry. I can see the focal point, but that is because I am a professional with many years of experience.

You sir, are probably some kid who stole digital editing software off the internet and claims to be a CGI artist. You don't know anything about computer graphics or computer simulation.


Originally posted by Sentinel412

Try to analyze it from a scientific point of view like I did.

Another prime example of a "my profession went into my head" type of artist. No, you did not. If your would do a scientific approach, the next two points what I quoted wouldn't exist (These are not scientific answers, just blind "I know everything because I'm an artist.". You're just an artist, nothing more. But you're far away to give scientific point of view about anything. This is what about I talked above.


Another prime example of you being absolutely clueless. I am not "just an artist". How many times must I say that? I major in computer science, and study physics. I just happen to have a job that involves computer graphics so I have the title "professional". I am also an electrical engineer with a strong background in many different sciences. I have a strong knowledge of light and matter because I am currently in the processes of creating a "theory of everything". I am a scientist, an electrical engineer, a computer programmer, a computer graphics engineer, and much more....

So sit down child.


Originally posted by Sentinel412

No... just no...

Because you can't explain? Actually that's an existing element, what about many CGI artist doesn't know at all. Try the following method what I said. Go down near a lake or into a gulf and if the other side will be sharper, like if it would be a fake picture, and the other side also seems to be closer then as it is in the reality, storm comes (Oh, and in the meantime the sky seems blured). It's clear that you're a pro in a simulated world, but you don't have the slightest clue how nature truly works. Simulated world is NOT equal with reality. This optical illusion is existing in the reality. It's a natural phenomenon.


I said NO because what you are talking is irrelevant to this argument, not because I can't explain. I know things about this universe that you would only dream of knowing. While you keep bashing people with computer graphics knowledge, you completely and utterly lack the ability to understand people have more than one profession, and or skill, and or set of knowledge.

You are a waste of time now.

The rest of you post is a complete waste of time and only highlights your ignorance. I am now going to ignore you as it seems you are still just a clueless child and you are not worth my time.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
To reproduce reality with computer graphics, you must first understand reality...






edit on 25-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join