UFO photographed by Hungarian Military pilot.

Originally posted by psyshow
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.

Thanks for your thoughts. Does this mean that every photo that contains grain and non grain is a photoshopped picture?

You admit that this photo has been compressed, but don't consider other treatments to the picture. So whilst i agree with your statement this does not in anyway solve the picture as to whether it is a hoax or not.

reply to post by DomCheetham


You should read this book:

Digital compositing for film and video, Volume 10 By Steve Wright

Chapter 8 covers the common issues encountered when trying to composite two layers together taken from different cameras, and or compositing CGI with a real photograph.

Whenever a scene is photographed, all of the objects in the scene have obviously been filmed with the same camera so they all share the same "look." When two layers are shot with different cameras on different film stocks and are then later composited, the film and camera lens differences can defeat the photo-realism of the composite. This chapter explores the issues of camera lens effects such as focus, depth of field, and lens flares, as well as film grain characteristics and how to get a better match between the disparate layers. The ultimate objective here is to make the composted shot look like all of the objects in the scene were photographed together with the same lens and film stock.

The above pretty much explains exactly the issues I was trying to point out in my first post. The OP's images of the UFO do NOT have photorealism. The UFO not only is too sharp, but it is lacking the grain of the actual camera. It is clear to me that the UFO was a separate layer added onto the clouds/sky layer, and it is obvious that the UFO was NOT filmed with the same camera lens and film/CCD as the clouds.

Here is the next paragraph:

One of the worse offenders in this area is, of course, CGI. Not only does the CGI have no grain, it also has no lens. While the CGI is rendered with a user-specified computer-simulated "lens", these are mathematically perfect simulations that have none of the flaws and optical aberrations that characterize real lenses. Further, CGI lenses are perfectly sharp, whereas real lenses are not. The "sharp" edges in a 2k film frame will be a few pixels wide, but the same sharp edge in a 2k CGI render will be exactly one pixel wide. Even if the CGI element is rendered with a depth of field effect, the in-focus parts of the element will be razor sharp. The CGI element will appear too stark and "crispy" when composited into a film background.

....again, exactly the issues I detect in the OP images are discussed. The UFO is "too sharp" compared to the rest of the image, and is a sign that the UFO is CGI added to a real image. The clouds and UFO don't seem to be taken with the same amount of focus. The UFO looks completely fake. On top of that, there is no "grain" on the UFO that matches the rest of the image. Myself and other members can see this instantly... It is a sure sign that the UFO was added to a real photograph, and the amateur who created the photograph completely missed a few steps which could have added to the realism.

The book I linked goes on to describe how to "match the focus" in section 8.1, which I mentioned needed to be done to the OP's images. It also describes how to "match depth of field" in 8.2. And in 8.5 is talks about "matching the grain". These are all things that need to be done when compositing to layers or two different elements to look like it is taken from the same camera.

The UFO in this topic too me is an obvious fake. It shows ALL the tell tale signs of being a composite of two layers, and it was done by an amateur. There is no doubt in my mind because it is instantly noticeable to the trained eye. Sure, if one or two of the tell tale signs were only visible I would have some doubts, but in this case ALL of the tell tale signs are visible. It's not even a well done fake honestly.

reply to post by karl 12


it was in 2001, why do you manifest now?

UFOs are a cover up for the occult aspect of the elites... The Aliens are no more than demons/Jinns and re from inner earth and not from outer space.

reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod


I disagree.

Completely.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod

 

I disagree.

Completely.

It was expected!

The devils and their puppets are in total opposition with the Truth of God.

Your life is a lie, a dream and that's just your fault, blame only yourself for being what you are.

reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod


I submit to you, that you are the one living a lie...

But it's only my opinion, I won't go as far as to state something to be fact with nothing to back it up.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod

 

I submit to you, that you are the one living a lie...

But it's only my opinion, I won't go as far as to state something to be fact with nothing to back it up.

That makes sense, I feel relieved, it's a good thing to be at the total opposite of a devil (or a puppet of the devil).

My path is with God, the Almighty and my Truth and Guidance are from the Quran.

I've bet on God, you've bet on Satan (or one of Satan's perdition/illusion), what do you expect else than the flames of hell?

reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod


Funny that you think that I've picked sides.

I don't believe in god, therefore I don't believe in Satan either.

But we're straying way off topic here.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod

 

Funny that you think that I've picked sides.

I don't believe in god, therefore I don't believe in Satan either.

But we're straying way off topic here.

edit on 26/1/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

If you're not with God, you're mandatory with Satan, your whole life is a lie in the broadest sense of the term and the awakening will be hard for you during the Judgement Day.

reply to post by TheTruthIsFromGod


Convenient.

Smite me down and call me Jehovah then!

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
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.

Then study that environment what I said and you'll see what about I'm talking. You're just evading, because regardless you have knowledge, you're blind and don't know many thing. That's the sad fact.

What a clueless troll you turned out to be.

Actually I'm not a troll, but someone who always hated when fellow graphic artists tried to tell they knows everything, while they usually knew nothing, just had a big mouth. You're a prime example.

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

Oh, yes. You went out into the sunset and counted every photon, then matched that number with the computers. Your work is based on theories, nothing more. No one ever counted that how many photon is exisitng in a sunset, yet you're trying to present everything like if it would be a fact... which is not.

What you said was idiotic.

Why? Because you can't explain something again? You know at least I'm explaining what is wrong in those things what you're saying, then your only riposte is; idiotic. Typical self-righteous person when someone has a different opinion than you and you can't explain, because it's already way beyond your knowledge.

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.

Stolen software? Nope. You might do that, but here, we're buying the products. And I've worked many years in this profession as a professional, but I always hated fellow self-righteous graphic artists, whose are claiming they're some sort of almighty and knows everything, yet they don't have the slightest clue about many things at all, just telling what they read in some books (But they don't have any true personal experience, what they gathered outside the books.)

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....

Yeah, and if I would have a rotor I would be a helicopter. First, you're not speaking as a scientist. Second, you don't speak as an electrical engineer (I also have a degree about it), third you don't really speak as a computer programer (I always hated programming). But you speak as a "my profession went into my head" artist. I've met with your kind so many times and I'm wondering how is it possible that you still not extincted.

So sit down child.

Maybe I'm older then you're.

I said NO because what you are talking is irrelevant to this argument, not because I can't explain.

Sorry. How can be a weather is irrevelant when you're analysing a photo? Are really this stupid or you're getting surplus classes about it?

I know things about this universe that you would only dream of knowing.

Just don't be surprised, when I would say... Is this your greatest secret? Nah! It's not a big deal. You don't know me and what you believe is just a dream to me, is not a dream to me at all by some reason. And you're bringing up the universe as an example, while you don't have the slightest clue what is going on around you. First, look around and know your world. Then you can step to level 2. Until this is not happening, you can tell you know many things about the universe, but it's just half truth, kiddo.

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're trying to tell this to someone who has around four major profession / skill and three minor. And actually one of this is to understand and analyse people after their writings. That's where you failed against me, kiddo. And you're trying to tell people that how things works, believing that you truly knows something (You may do in one or two of your professions.). But in most cases it's far from the truth.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Ahem. Just one more note to your wonderful grainy explanation (As I already brought up an alternative explanation for why the sharpness is possible.). You never heard about materials which is kicking out the grain, right? Grainy surface + grainy lense = relative clear shot (Rare, but it's possible as the grains are filling each other.). I did some CGI in the past, where grain is not appeared on the object as the surface was grainy too and it's created a nice optical illusion. If sharpness is also present, you can get a similar effect what you can see on the photo. Try it on a photo too. Grain can kill grain sometimes. It's just like the phenomenon when the exact RPM of a helicopter rotor can be divided with the FPS and because of that, it seems stationary on the shots. Grains also behaving strange sometimes on different surfaces, without any photo manipulation.

I'm still not saying this photo is true, nor false, but while your "It's in the book" argument is works in most cases, it is not working in every possible one.

Oh, and you forget one possibility regarding the picture. Enhancement. Even NASA is doing with all their pictures before they're releasing them (A little effect, colorize, enhancement, grain removing here and there.). Or do you believe that every galaxy is shining that sharp and they're that colorful, just as the nebulas in video games? Think again. If we're following that example in that case every possible NASA photo is a fake, because you can't see grain in many of them and also sometimes the sharpness is also not correct at few places. Yet they're true, but the pictures were enhanced, got some sharpness and colorized.

Accidental double post. Delete.

in the last frame of the 3 pics the angle is different its leaning more forward but still going in same direction. it just looks a bit fake. sure if something zooms past it looks the same in each frame other than the location

Oh man .... round and round in circles .
This story is fake , dodgy pictures from a supposed film that no one has seen , a pilot with no name ,the originator of the story is an unreliable source and ATS members from Hungary have never heard of this supposed encounter ..... Fake .

I was quite enjoying the debate until I hit TheTruthIsFromGod posts about God and religion. Please take your religious dogma to another thread - this is about the UFO photograph, not your draconian belief system.

Anyhow, back on topic...

I have to agree with psyshow and gift0fpr0phecy on their later posts - the UFO image does seem very sharp and clear when compared to the sky background. Which, if it were real, would be a fantastic quality image. But given the quality of the rest of image, the UFO itself doesn't match.

My opinion is it's fake, I'm sad to say.

reply to post by Sentinel412


You continue to show your ignorance on this topic. It's hilarious.

While you have successfully forced me to speak about my profession and knowledge so that you may understand my argument more clearly, you then decided to ridicule me for doing so. You then insulted every single CGI artist in the world, including your self. Then you claim that I am a CGI artists who thinks he knows it all.... News Flash... YOU are the CGI artists who thinks he knows it all.... I am just a very knowledgeable person who can claim to be a CGI artists, not the other way around.

Now I am going to try to ignore your personal attacks instead of counter them like I did in my last reply to you... and I'm going to laugh at your straw grabbing and lack of knowledge shown in your posts.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Oh, yes. You went out into the sunset and counted every photon, then matched that number with the computers. Your work is based on theories, nothing more. No one ever counted that how many photon is exisitng in a sunset, yet you're trying to present everything like if it would be a fact... which is not.

First, lets back track so we can kill your straw man tactic. I never said the sunset was CGI, I said the sunset is a real photograph. I only said the UFO was CGI. Now here you are trying to use a straw man tactic and get me to talk about a CGI sunset. Bravo... your pathetic tactics have successfully derailed the conversation.

Even then.... YES, EVERY PHOTON CAN BE CALCULATED BY COMPUTERS. For your information, it is already known by measuring the output of the Sun, and the area of Earth, there is about 5x10^7 photons per second hitting the Earth from the Sun. The composition of the atmosphere is already known as well as the interactions that photons of different wavelengths have with the particles in the atmosphere. In the end it's all about following the path of a single photon, calculating it's interaction with everything in its path inside the scene, and then moving to the next one.

Here is a paper on just that:

Simulation and visualization of atmospheric light phenomena induced by light scattering.

This paper presents a method of visualizing some of the light phenomena visible in the outdoors such as sunsets, rainbows, purple lights or halos, These phenomena are produced by the scattering of sunlight and sky light on atmospherical particles. The enormous increase in computing power in the last ten years has made it possible to correctly simulate some of these light phenomena and render them visible, using computer-graphics techniques. The created visualization environment combines the mathematical basis of the scattering process (Rayleigh- and Mie-scattering) with real world properties for the atmosphere (pure air, aerosols, ozone) and its particles (soot, dust, water, ice crystals) to reproduce light effects by specifying sun position and the atmospheric composition.

That is just ONE group with limited computer resources trying that, there is several hundred more that you don't know about. IT IS POSSIBLE.

So again... your lack of knowledge on this subject is obvious.

Originally posted by Sentinel412

What you said was idiotic.

Why? Because you can't explain something again? You know at least I'm explaining what is wrong in those things what you're saying, then your only riposte is; idiotic. Typical self-righteous person when someone has a different opinion than you and you can't explain, because it's already way beyond your knowledge.

No, you are not explaining anything that is wrong with my observations and conclusions. You are creating idiotic counter arguments that have no relation to the images in question. You are just spewing nonsense in such a form that you think what you say has any relation to the images in question. I understand everything you are saying, and it's quite obviously idiotic.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
That's where you failed against me, kiddo. And you're trying to tell people that how things works, believing that you truly knows something (You may do in one or two of your professions.). But in most cases it's far from the truth.

I see right through you troll.... You are taking these stupid UFO images way too personal... it's almost like I am attacking your personal work. If I had to put someone on my suspect list, you would definitely be on it.

I have been debunking hoax UFO's for a very long time now, and I have a 100% perfect record. I have NEVER been wrong about any sighting that I have said was fake. I am HOAXKiller1, and my work is known by several UFO communities.

You sir, are just clueless and don't understand who you are talking to. I'm not your average poster.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Ahem. Just one more note to your wonderful grainy explanation (As I already brought up an alternative explanation for why the sharpness is possible.). You never heard about materials which is kicking out the grain, right? Grainy surface + grainy lense = relative clear shot (Rare, but it's possible as the grains are filling each other.). I did some CGI in the past, where grain is not appeared on the object as the surface was grainy too and it's created a nice optical illusion. If sharpness is also present, you can get a similar effect what you can see on the photo. Try it on a photo too. Grain can kill grain sometimes. It's just like the phenomenon when the exact RPM of a helicopter rotor can be divided with the FPS and because of that, it seems stationary on the shots. Grains also behaving strange sometimes on different surfaces, without any photo manipulation.

Watching you try to explain away the horrible CGI job that was done on these images is hilarious. Did you make these UFO images? It's starting to seem like it.

You are actually trying to tell me that completely random grains from completely random lens artifacts and impurities are perfectly matching completely random grains from a material on the UFO, which is moving in different frames, as to cause the UFO to appear grainless, and perfectly clear.....

You are actually trying to insist that the grain from the UFO is canceling out the natural grain from the camera so that it looks perfectly grainless and clear..... That is like hitting the lottery jackpot a thousand times in one night.

If you were TRULY a PROFESSIONAL CGI ARTIST you would know just how dumb what you just said is. Especially considering the UFO images are said to be taken from a VIDEO. Video grain is constantly changing each frame. Yet every UFO shot seems to be grainless.

On top of that, all "grain" and "noise" has a certain unique color range on every camera. You can't just add grain to an object and expect it to look right. The grain has to have identical color as the rest of the cameras grain. You actually have to match each color channels grain. What you are insisting is completely impossible....

Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
I'm still not saying this photo is true, nor false, but while your "It's in the book" argument is works in most cases, it is not working in every possible one.

It's not an "it's in the book" argument... is an "only amateurs are dumb enough to forget" argument.

When you composite CGI elements into a real photograph, there are several steps you must do to make it look real. Whoever made these FAKE UFO images forgot to do several very important steps.... or didn't know how to do them in the first place. In other words, they were not a good artist, but a crappy artist.

You have to first make the color correction... or it will be obvious that the UFO was not taken from the same camera. After color correction you have to match focus, depth, grain, edge blending, light warp effects, etc... if you miss any of these steps, professionals can see it quite easily...

I can see it quite easily.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Oh, and you forget one possibility regarding the picture. Enhancement. Even NASA is doing with all their pictures before they're releasing them (A little effect, colorize, enhancement, grain removing here and there.).

If these images have been enhanced, that is just proof that digital manipulation has been done. If that is the case, I would still call this a HOAX and FAKE until they can provide the original images untouched, unedited.

I am under the impression that the OPs images are "untouched and unedited", so I am basing my conclusions on that. The UFO images are FAKE, and they are very horrible FAKES even.

It is obvious you are new to the UFO field and don't understand that processes of elimination when it comes to weeding out the hoax UFOs form the real UFOs.




So lets recap...

1: The UFO is too sharp, there is not edge blending effects which are normal for real camera lenses. It has tell tale signs of being a CGI composite which was not filmed behind REAL lenses.

2: The UFO has zero color correction applied, meaning the natural tints applied by the IR cut filter, and the cameras color settings, and or the sensitivity of the film and or CCD does NOT match the UFO. The UFO does NOT appear to be actually taken from the same camera that filmed the clouds.

3: The UFO is perfectly focused, and the clouds are slightly blurry. This would indicate "depth of field" and the UFO is in the focal point. However, when you look at the clouds you can see a it has it's own focal point. So the image has two focal points, and they don't match. This is a tell tale sign that whoever made the CGI composite didn't spend much time matching the focus or depth of field already present in the camera.

The trained eye can easily see that UFO is actually "on top" of the image, and not "in" the image...

4: Grain and noise... again... does not match the rest of the image. The UFO does not appear to be taken behind the same lens and IR cut filter. In fact, it appears that when they composited the CGI UFO into the cloud image, the cloud images already had preexisting compression artifacts! So they made a huge mistake..... they didn't start with lossless image (like png), they started with a compressed image (probably jpg), and added a CGI element on top, then compressed it again into a JPG, doubling the compression artifacts.

5: The light reflection/highlight on the UFO is the wrong color!



This is a HORRIBLE FAKE.

Click here for more information.

This thread has gone silly methinks. An argument about who believes in God in a thread about a film of what looks like a flying disk.



Time to unsubscribe from this one.