It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How difficult would it be to photoshop this?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:57 PM
Okay, so I did a quick search and didn't see this, but I just happened to come across it on Youtube. Just watch it and tell me how difficult it would be create this bit. Not only does the thing pass through the cloud, it has a drag-coefficent and creates a ring vortex upon exit.

For those of you at work...summing this up; someone's videotaping an airplane landing at Orlando Int'l and a black object traveling at VERY high speeds passes so quickly from right to left, only a few frames capture it. It passes directly through a cloud so quickly that it blows particulates out one side causing a ring vortex.

What do you guys think? I've never seen this video before right now.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:02 AM
That's no ring vortex.

That UFO got that cloud to actually blow a smoke ring.


posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:04 AM
That is the fakest thing I have ever seen before! So pixelated it's crazy. Fake all the way. To clear to be real, pixelation, and too fast to happen.
I have a degree in multi media, fake.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by Xterrain

Here it is embedded.

Very interesting vid...who would want to go to the trouble of CGIing all these ufo's?

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:10 AM
I guess I'll be the prick and say that it would be impossible to Photoshop that, because Photoshop is for photos, and not video.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by samlf3rd

Pixelation is simply caused by zooming in so I'm surprised tp hear someone with your backround use that as proof of fakery.
But yes its fake.
edit on 27-5-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:19 AM
Where does the video look fake?

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by Xterrain

A few key things instantly appear to me.

1: It's a decent normal clip of someone following a plane with their camera.
2: The 'ufo' is so fast that any effort to debunk it can be impossible. (edited to clarify)
3: The 'fog' effect is easily done, a little bit of motion tracking to follow the camera and remain part of the clouds, you'd not even need to justify a faulty track as it's so fast and already prone to dissipation as clouds do.

As an example of how it would look to use the same particle filter for a different effect, this clip had more time for anything to go wrong, and it didn't.

And here is the RESULT OF A TUTORIAL on how to fake a ufo. As you can see, it doesn't require hollywood to come up with something, and if the intent was indeed to hoax then they would make it short, using real footage, and lightly apply an effect.

Note I say again, the above is not real, if you read the youtube channel it links to where you can obtain the tutorial. I post it because you asked. I don't offer any credit to people who do these with ill intent.

edit on 27-5-2012 by mainidh because: clarify

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:29 AM
reply to post by dayve

The smoke ring. Clouds are not very dense, they only look solid because they are so deep. The smoke ring can only be a matter of a few feet thick therefore it would not be visible.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:34 AM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by dayve

The smoke ring. Clouds are not very dense, they only look solid because they are so deep. The smoke ring can only be a matter of a few feet thick therefore it would not be visible.

And if it was that dense, it wouldnt dissipate instantly. I mean look at the very end of the of smoke "puff". If that doesnt scream fake I dont know what does. Also, it has horrible music, which means its fake. Its always fake when it has horrible music. 100% of the time, no exceptions.

So in regards to the question: It would be easy.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by SubPop79

Lol, well you can be very strange and boring but meticulous and do it frame by frame.

Stranger things have happened, and thank god it did, rotoscoping over live actors gave way to movies like Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by mainidh

Not quite the same effect in the source video but close enough for me to say that my suspicions that it's faked are well founded.
I really can't say for certain but the effect the 'UFO' has on the cloud seems too perfect.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:13 AM
I am not going to say whether or not this is fake, but I will say, sense I own and work with Adobe After Effects, it would be extremely simple. In fact, it would only take a few min. Because a tutorial was posted above I am not going to make one, but it can be done with little effort.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by Xterrain

A read of the comments section on YouTube has one that says that these things move thru space without affecting it so the visible "puff" would not be there.

Then again the Chicago O'Hare airport unknown was supposed to do shoot up thru clouds leaving a "hole" behind.
Still looks fake.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by Ark005

Oh I didn't expect it to be the same effect, it's used entirely in a different way. There are many many parameters you can tweak to get what effect you desire. Hence the comparison, it's fake smoke, or it could be fake smog, or a fake cloud, or fake mist. The point was that it is doable in less than a few clicks of a mouse if you have a basic understanding of the technology... which is as easy as finding a youtube tutorial.

In the case of the vid in the OP, it's been done, in my opinion, with that specific effect in mind. And being so quick, to alter it frame by frame in AE, is too easy. But I'm not claiming 100% anything here, just to be sure. In my opinion, it's a fake.

The other video was to demonstrate that an effect similar to a fleeting ufo can also be done within the same range as that of the cloud drag effect. I've seen far more intricate videos, but felt that this one defined what it was I needed to point out, fast moving fleeting objects do not require even as much as a fluid background to appear realistic. As with the second video I posted, the guy used a single photo as the backdrop and managed the camera movement, focus and shake all within after effects.

Which any demon can download for free, OR student can use in study.

My issue with UFO footage always falls on it's ability to be recognised large scale. If it's too good to be believed, but there are multiple separate accounts, with the same details, the same time, direction, speed, but definitely not a collaboration, then I will accept it. It's sad that all of these cases have gone without footage to validate it. Because it's these cases that keep me looking.

When it's one guy on youtube with an easily done render of something like that, no other accounts of the same event, no media talking about the lunatics in the hills seeing UFO's with cheesy xfiles music to then say hundreds of people witnessed it, but oh they are silly idiots because UFO's don't exist... then it tells me more about it than I'm willing to accept as plausible.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:45 AM
This video was posted here and discussed extensively last year.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:55 AM
As mentioned by PhoenixOD this was posted last year and is now living in the Hoax forum

Amazing UFO video!!! -ORLANDO AIRPORT June 2011 [HOAX],

top topics


log in