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.

 

Psychic's predictions for 2012 -- From 30 years ago. [CONFIRMED HOAX]

page: 41
71
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by HeywoodFloyd
 


I already complained about it as soon as it happened, but he said he's really sure, so he and I will just have to agree to disagree, more or less. What a shame though. It truly should have been more carefully examined and given more time.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassiopeia1966
I forgot the picture
[ats]
img29.imageshack.us...
[ats]


That is just interlacing, aka fielded. Even new cameras shoot interlaced video but many have the option for progressive full frame...720i - 720p, 1080i etc. Perhaps some terms i am mixing up because i havent thought about this much since i worked in broadcasting. This is interesting to me because i started at the transition from analog to video and edited tons of analog footage. I cut with Speed Razor for a few years in the beginning but learned on Amiga deck to deck, falling sheeps transition, kee kee dancing etc. Speed Razor blew me away though, interestingly enough it was made in france and may very well have been the first NLE. Been so long if my info is in error feel free to correct it.

That black frame at 35 seconds stumps me though. Why was it put there?

To th poster who posted the video from the 80s of the awards show: That was awesome video.

Most people are not aware that analog video actually has more realistic color than digital BUT digital has come a long way and it was not until "HD" become somewhat standard that digital came into its own. Still, perhaps most would agree, the analog trumps for color reproduction whereas some digital is way over saturated. When analog is referenced here it is not meant to denote VHS because that was pretty crappy, though S-VHS was OK...more like todays pro-sumer.

My own impression has not changed, it is either the real deal or was shot with an old broadcast camera.

Personally, it is hard to fool me with digital video made to look like analog because it always looks like plugins. If I am shown to be wrong that would be pretty shocking.

I am still 50 - 50 and this could certainly be genuine 80's video. It is 3 chip broadcast camera made in Japan with a lens the length of a person forearm. Either Sony, Panasonic or Ikegami, i go with the later.

All that being said, it is a bit pointless to analyze a youtube video simply because we are at the mercy of the person who digitized it and the equipment they used. Its a clean upload, nothing to complain about...it is what it is.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


If I understand you right, the resolution of the video is 225 (+-15) lines but interlaced. Or have I to double the number? Is that a strong indication, that the source has to be a videotape?

I found one video type with 240 lines:

U-Matic LB (portable)
1971- end 1980s

Another format by Sony. Has three different versions (LB, HB and SP), which differ by the subcarrier frequencies used for luminance and chrominance recording. U-Matic LB (Low Band) has been around from the early 70s and is one of the oldest cassette video formats. HB (High Band) has increased chroma subcarrier frequency, which improves colour resolution. In the SP variant, both chroma and luma subcarrier frequencies have been increased.
U-Matic SP (in common lingo "3/4" after the tape width in inches) is still a popular production format for those not wealthy enough to use Beta SP or similar. Although U-Matic doesn't appear much better than Super VHS on paper, the higher colour resolution and much better signal-to-noise ratio make the picture subjectively far more enjoyable. The U-Matic tape transport is also much faster in changing modes, which makes editing less frustrating.
LB and HB U-Matic tapes are often used for archiving because of the relatively low tape costs and low recording density, which makes the tapes robust against aging.
Text from:
users.tkk.fi...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassiopeia1966
reply to post by Malcher
 


If I understand you right, the resolution of the video is 225 (+-15) lines but interlaced. Or have I to double the number? Is that a strong indication, that the source has to be a videotape?

I found one video type with 240 lines:

U-Matic LB (portable)
1971- end 1980s

Another format by Sony. Has three different versions (LB, HB and SP), which differ by the subcarrier frequencies used for luminance and chrominance recording. U-Matic LB (Low Band) has been around from the early 70s and is one of the oldest cassette video formats. HB (High Band) has increased chroma subcarrier frequency, which improves colour resolution. In the SP variant, both chroma and luma subcarrier frequencies have been increased.
U-Matic SP (in common lingo "3/4" after the tape width in inches) is still a popular production format for those not wealthy enough to use Beta SP or similar. Although U-Matic doesn't appear much better than Super VHS on paper, the higher colour resolution and much better signal-to-noise ratio make the picture subjectively far more enjoyable. The U-Matic tape transport is also much faster in changing modes, which makes editing less frustrating.
LB and HB U-Matic tapes are often used for archiving because of the relatively low tape costs and low recording density, which makes the tapes robust against aging.
Text from:
users.tkk.fi...


I am not familiar with formats before mid to late 80's. It's impossible to pinpoint exactly what camera this was shot with except that it is safe to say it is a professional camera. The main way to tell from a youtube upload is to know it was shot with a camera with a good lens. Color is kind of subjective but it sure looks like it came from an analog source.

A lot of time when you see 1/2" or 3/4" it is referring to the chip size. I shot with both half and three quarter chip cameras from that time, main camera was 3/4 inch Sony but also we used Ikegami's that were, at the time, considered a step above everything else. But either way the three professional cameras from that time were sony, panasonic and, of course, the ikegami. like the one below which we referred to as an E-Key or eeekkee:
Bad ass camera. With the right lighting it was good for broadcasting or archiving footage that would last for hundreds of years.

www.ikegami.com...

The only formats i worked with were Betacam SP, S-VHS and later on DVCAM. DVCAM is still used today except most cameras now are tapeless. DVCAM (considered a step above S-VHS) is all digital similar and to what you see from DV except the tape runs a little slower while its recording and consider to be a lot better than standard DV. I never really cared for DV since it is more consumer type and DVCAM would be referred to as a professional format and DV is "pro-sumer" or what something like if you remember "blair witch project" would be shot on. DVCAM is good for local cable news or even run and gun network news. That is really when i first noticed the color differences between even S-VHS and DV because the S-VHS to me had better color, more realistic.

I guess you are familiar with interlacing. If not it is just two parts coming together. A good way to visualize what interlacing is is if you take your hands and interlock your fingers with one finger from left hand, over one finger from right hand and so on. Of course straight to web then you want to shoot progressive.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the frame rate is 29.97 fps (NTSC) the human eye cannot see the separate frames and just looks like one whole frame.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is what we are pointing out in the video as interlacing also known as scan lines or fielding.

Interlacing is still used today so is not a dead giveaway that this is an old video.

All that being said i was a shooter and later on an editor so really the technical terms only coincide with what i had to work with. Which was just mid level, the super high end i am not so familiar with. Old video, to me, is like looking at a work of art. You have the graininess, kind of like old film in some respects.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
That is just interlacing, aka fielded.


Actually, this is evidence that the original was shot using 1080i, I should have seen that earlier.

The two different versions of HD video end in either "p" for progressive scan, or "i" for interlaced. When we look at a close up of a still in Photoshop:

We can confirm that the interlaced pattern in the HD video does indeed confirm it was shot at 1080i -- or 1920x1080 interlaced. The interlace pattern is no larger than single pixels... 540 lines per field.

This places this video firmly in the category of CONFIRMED HOAX.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Hi Skeptic,

Love the site and the graphics, that is what caught my interest here and the content keeps me reading for hours.

The problem is that this video originated at either 720x480 or 720x576 for ntsc and pal respetvively. So how is your screen grab almost 6mb? I just captured a screen grab using ctrl-shift 4 on a mac laptop and in photoshop it is under 1mb. To me this falls in line with any screen grab from an analog video source. Your 5mb plus grab is way over what we would expect to see from a video (non HD) source. Then you zoom in to 400% so what we are seeing in your screen grab is just pixelation. In other words you are over extending the original content.

My screen grab right now in photoshop is 880.9K, under 1mb from the alleged 1080 youtube screen grab.

Now what i see, merely from a visual perspective, is analog colors in that original video. Why your screen grab is close to 6mb is a mystery to me.

If someone wanted to make a video from the 80s why not start with the right equipment? I have a beta SP deck right here and can buy a camera cheaply on ebay only i no longer have the tape for it. Tell you right now, i can come up with SVHS tape by making a few phone calls.

My contention is that we are dealing with:

A: Professionals who got a hold of some old analog equipment. And to be honest with you I can replicate this.

or

B: It is the real deal 1980s all the way.

The person in front of the camera was a professional. Having shot hours and hours of interviews i can tell this person is a pro in front of the camera. The person behind the camera...same thing, pro all the way.

The only sticking point for me, as i pointed out was the light in the glasses, but that can be due to fast setup. I would have positioned the lights so the reflection was not in his glasses but sometime you just dont have the time. So yeah, looks like soft boxes in the glasses and from a professional standpoint is the only # up i can see. I was on the set with my father shooting film at 4K (late 70s) this is the real deal. But you know its just a matter of perspective.

I was on the set for film shoots and watched my father change reels of film on the fly with a plastic bag so not to expose the film changing reels as we went along.

This is some serious # and that pixelated video means nothing to me.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
"Psychic's predictions for 2012 ORIGINAL COPY" (without subtitles) is removed by the uploader
www.youtube.com...
When I asked why, he said "i removed it cuz i believe it's fake"
www.youtube.com...

Did someone downloaded it?


edit on 21-1-2012 by vulcanus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
The original upload was

www.youtube.com...

and it's still up.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
The problem is that this video originated at either 720x480 or 720x576 for ntsc and pal respetvively.

We wouldn't see 1-pixel interlacing at 1920x1080 if that were so.



So how is your screen grab almost 6mb?

That's what Photoshop would require at full size for a native 1920x1080 image, with two layers.

I downloaded the full-size 1080 video from YouTube using KeepVid. Here is the link to my single-frame used for the crop in my previous post: psychic-grab.jpg (847k)

For reference, here is the 1920x1080 MP4 video I've been using for analysis: Psychics-predictions-for-2012.mp4 (285mb)

Given the way that Keepvid.com functions, this is likely a mild re-compression of the source video that was uploaded to YouTube. When played at full resolution (you need a big monitor), you can clearly see the single-pixel interlacing in several areas throughout the video. I just wished I had noticed that sooner.

The only way for that interlacing to occur is if the original video was shot in 1080i.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


applause



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by osneel
The original upload was

www.youtube.com...

and it's still up.

There was a version without the subs, color correction etc.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thanks, now I have my peace of mind.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Can you even select 1080 option (which this video has) for non 1080 source video upload to youtube?

Also the date is beyond the 720 width.



Pretty bad mistakes right there. Seems odd since these are easy to fix before uploading.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Has anybody heard from the guy who uploaded the video?
Last I read he was on his way to France to look for more information on the guy.
Sounded like the plot to a bad movie. Guy loses his job, so
he takes his life savings and runs to France?
Too many things point to this being fabricated.
I guess nobody will know until more evidence comes forward.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Okay, I'm impressed, Skeptic. You put a lot of time and effort into showing us exactly what you knew and saw from the beginning and I, for one, appreciate it. You could have just dropped it and left well enough alone, but didn't. So, thank you.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
reply to post by Gerizo
 


I love the fact that you are 100% sure the guy's called Nietzermann just because someone said so and yet you are not willing to believe anything that marks this as a hoax. Just to make a quick recap:

* It has been established that the picture of the guy in the audience has been photoshoped.
* Right after we discover this, a newspaper clipping appears out of nowhere although the source is never mentioned.
* The name of the guy brings nothing up in Google even though he was supposedly a killer on the run for 20 years and "killed a lot of people".
* Someone supposedly have a lot of information on this guy but he hadn't shared any except for that little article.
* The editor of the video, who's mail appears at the end, has been responding his mails from a IP that belongs to the Writers Guild of America.

The fact that the article and the photo came up means someone is going to the trouble to create all this. I will give you an idea: google "french newspaper archives" and search for this guy's supposed name on them. You would not find a single mention of him. Don't you think it's a little strange considering he was a killer?

I said it before and I say it now, this whole thing is probably a viral marketing campain trying to get a picture from someone (the writer that uploaded this video) made.


If you believe anything is 100% correct on a conspiracy site then you have some issues. I merely stated what was already figured out earlier in the thread and I was pointing that out. I also just translated what was posted on the French website. If you read what I wrote I asked the same question that this alleged psychic was also a killer?? My argument was that in my opinion at the time there was not enough evidence to declare it a hoax. After writing this reply, I will continue reading the thread as I see the title has been changed to " CONFIRMED HOAX".



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I am curious, does changing the thread title already prematurely marked a "Hoax" have a different meaning than, "CONFIRMED HOAX"? There still has been no real proof that 100% confirms this a hoax even with the new technical explanation that was recently given. So am I curious is writing the words in capital and bold form change the actual meaning and value to the words???



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gerizo
I am curious, does changing the thread title already prematurely marked a "Hoax" have a different meaning than, "CONFIRMED HOAX"? There still has been no real proof that 100% confirms this a hoax even with the new technical explanation that was recently given. So am I curious is writing the words in capital and bold form change the actual meaning and value to the words???


Dear curious, I believe the words mean what the words actually mean i.e. that it has been confirmed a hoax. does that help? Although there is no real 100% proof that confirms words actually DO mean what they mean, so you know. think what you like arright? but you will be on your own....


edit on 22-1-2012 by Aucuparia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aucuparia

Originally posted by Gerizo
I am curious, does changing the thread title already prematurely marked a "Hoax" have a different meaning than, "CONFIRMED HOAX"? There still has been no real proof that 100% confirms this a hoax even with the new technical explanation that was recently given. So am I curious is writing the words in capital and bold form change the actual meaning and value to the words???


Dear curious, I believe the words mean what the words actually mean i.e. that it has been confirmed a hoax. does that help? Although there is no real 100% proof that confirms words actually DO mean what they mean, so you know. think what you like arright? but you will be on your own....


edit on 22-1-2012 by Aucuparia because: (no reason given)


Actually, depending on how the word is used and spoken it could have a few different meanings. (I.E.dictionaries provide many such examples) Perhaps you should have used that sharp brain of yours and used your word "meaning" example to see through to my hidden sarcasm. Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer I can see. It has not been confirmed a hoax in my opinion and I don't recall you providing anything to change said opinion. Also, if your going to insult me please try and use a complete sentence with proper spelling. It makes your side of the conversation look better. Trust me on this. Alright?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Good work.

If I can get Caddyshack in 1080i widescreen on bluray - why wouldn't someone be able to convert this for modern resolutions? They didn't shoot in 1080 in 1980, but they can convert the movie to 1080. Just playing devils advocate.

The guy looks uncomfortable, unnatural like he's sat in dead mans clothes and he isn't used to those huge spectacles covering his face. I feel this is a great big ruse, but just wanted to cover video conversion before someone less forgiving does!

Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join