reply posted on 10-9-2012 @ 11:02 AM by Lystring
One can rule out CGI, unless this is really well done CGI. You got the rolling shutter and the whole kit present in the video. No clumsy editing or
anything can be seen.
So how do you get harvester headlights up in the air light that? If we assume there is no post-fabrication in these shots at all, the shots where
nothing is obscuring the light could easily be done by shooting close to a reflective glass so that the light from behind will bounce on the glass
surface at the same time you'll see the scene behind the glass surface. Tilting the glass will offset the light source and make it "float" in the
air if needed. If it is very dark and you are dressed in dark clothes you could just place yourself some distance from the glass surface and zoom in
on it and there will be no chance that you'll get caught in the reflection.
And the shots where the light is close to the ground doesn't require anything else than just shooting. If there is a hill nearby (which can be seen
in the reference picture) all you have to do is have the harvesters moving on the hillside, zoom in a bit with the camera to flat out the perspective,
and you can get an illusion of something floating near the treetops. Or it might be an illusion created by bushes and zoomed in lens (as suggested
However, the so called "frame capture 2" is a bit more puzzling since the light is obviously being obscured by a tree which is allegedly higher
above the ground. This could be done with a larger reflective surface such as a plexiglas sheet mounted from a crane and have it reflect the light
from the harvesters. If you zoom quite a lot during the shot (which seem to be the case in the shot) you won't see the edge of the sheet. Especially
in a highly compressed low definition video. If you stabilize the material you'll notice several bright spots that doesn't move up in the skies.
They doesn't seem to be flares, and they are too large to be stars. Could it be distant light sources caught in the reflective surface together with
The lights really resemble farming equipment, both in shape and movement. And the lights seem to lack a solid body which to me suggest some kind of
reflection. But I think a quicker way would be to fake the still photo to match the video shots instead. It's much easier to fake an image that
doesn't move, and presented in a Youtube video people won't have the ability to spot if the photo is fabricated or not. There is no source of the
original reference photo on Google either, suggesting that whoever shot the source video or snapped the reference photo never needed to "ask the
internet" for advice. The one who shot the video wasn't completely technically illiterate.
Either the research is very precise, or the one who shot the reference photo knew exactly where to stand to get the angle right. One might wonder if
it would be that easy to remember an exact location and angle of shooting if you would actually see a real flying object like that in the pitch dark
foggy night, or if the location and angle was deliberately remembered and presented just to give authority to the story.
Definitely not unfakeable, but pretty well done compared to all the crappy Adobe After Effects videos on Youtube recently.