Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way connected with the software. I came across it on a website and was pretty much blown away by how
well it works. I figured I'd share it here since image manipulation is of interest to many here at ATS.
We've all seen threads where someone is trying to make the case that NASA is covering up something and they've got undeniable, indisputable, fuzzy,
low resolution pictures to prove it. Several times the thought crossed my mind that if this was the best that NASA, a multi-billion dollar
organization, could do to obscure something why didn't more Space Shuttles blow up? It's my opinion that, if NASA wanted to airbrush out any UFOs,
Alien Lunar Hotels, or Alien tourists waving at their cameras then they'd do it so well that some guy sitting at a PC in his underwear at 3:00 in the
mourning wouldn't stand a chance of seeing the edit.
Then I stumble across this software that edits out objects with believable filling in and does it in only a few seconds. Plus it's only ~ 2.5 MB and
is WAY cheaper that Adobe Photoshop. Technology marches at an incredible pace.
Amazing technoligy. Just imagine what the govt has. I remember watching a movie and in that movie a main stream media corporation was making fake
video's generated by a computer. They wear able to put objects with in the packdrop and even moving talking people. I am sure they have this
technology so that they dont have to higher actors (mind control actors) and risk the truth from being told.
I think CS5 will do a better job however its great software, I dont think NASA could use it to block everything though as it would take ages to fill
everything. Not to say there is actually anything there worth editing out.
Yeah it's definitely an automated action using content aware. Content aware scaling was in CS4 as well. There's a myriad of Photoshop actions you
can either download for free or buy, for more sophisticated speed tools for the lazy, (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). You generally have
to do some spot touching up.
BTW they showed a bad example on their home page. And as always tutorials do pick easy to work with originals. But why would you want to get rid of
Interesting how the resulting image ended up with some repeated trees that makes it fairly obvious that the image was manipulated.
The repeated image is making me think about another picture I saw a while ago. I'm pretty sure it was on ATS, but unfortunately I can't remember
much about it. I'm not even sure whether it was taken on a Planet or a moon.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.