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.
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?
How long was the no-fly restriction on Sept 11'th?
I do find it curious that he waited so long to file the report.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
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.).
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.
Originally posted by Sentinel412
I used to be the same. This is why I try to analyze it as a non CGI artist.
Originally posted by Sentinel412
True natural environment cannot be simulated with CGI.
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.
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.).
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.
Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
My knowledge of physics, optics, light, matter, etc., is vast.
There already exists software which calculates EVERY SINGLE PHOTON in a scene, and can simulate reality.
Now you are just talking rubbish. The movie Avatar had absolutely no problems with simplistic optical effects such as depth of field and focus.
Try to analyze it from a scientific point of view like I did.
No... just no...
It's a weak argument...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.