reply to post by sputniksteve
Here is my professional opinion of the image:
It is a well known fact that the further an object is from an observer in an atmosphere, the more Rayleigh scattering affects the light that the
object is emitting or reflecting towards the observer, and it causes what some refer to as an "atmospheric haze" in front of the object. An example
of Rayleigh scattering is visible when looking at the land mass in the distant background of the Crete image, and taking note of its light blue
A not-so-well-known fact is that Rayleigh scattering tends to make the edges
of objects much more "hazy" and or "blurry" than the rest of the
object when the background is brighter than the object. That is because the brighter background creates a soft shadow on the object visible by the
observer, and the penumbra of the shadow causes the edges of the object to appear lighter to the observer, forming a type of "light bloom" around the
edges. The lighter edges of the object caused by the penumbra are then affected by Rayleigh scattering, and that causes the edges of objects to
appear more "hazy" and "blurry" than the rest of the object. Again, an example of this is visible on the land mass in the distant background when
looking at the edges that meet the sky. You can see the edge is not very sharp, it is soft. You still with me?
It is my opinion that the creators of this HOAX lacked knowledge of light and physics, and used a common technique for faking the "atmospheric haze"
on the object. The common technique for faking "atmospheric haze" on a composited object is simply making the object semi-transparent so that the
color of the background sky blends with the colors of the object. The problem with that technique is that it only simulates "atmospheric haze" on the
, and it does not successfully simulate how the edges
of said object would look with real "atmospheric haze" in real lighting
It is my opinion that the edges of the object are too sharp for the amount of "haze" that it appears to have. The amount of "blue haze" visible on
the object would indicate that object is very far away, however the edges of the object are far too sharp, and don't appear to show any real "haze"
effects, indicating the object is closer (which is a conflict). The sharp edges are an indicator that the "haze" is faked by using the common
technique explained above. It also indicates the object was probably cut and pasted, or rendered, or created from a completely different light
environment or with no lighting taken into account, because the edges of the object are far too dark, and don't show any type of "light bloom" or
penumbra effect that are often visible when the background is brighter than the object.
Also, the fact that the bright specular highlight on the object is slightly blue in color also indicates the common fake haze technique describe above
was used. When they made the object semi-transparent to fake "atmospheric haze" they also caused the specular highlight to become blue. In reality,
specular highlights are a higher intensity light which causes them to be less affected by Rayleigh scattering, so they should not show "haze" or be
A lot of the above can all be explained away if you just consider the object itself is blue in color, close to the camera, and small. However, that
doesn't explain why the specular highlight is slightly blue. The only argument that would explain the slight blue color of the highlight is that the
object is slightly matte, and not very glossy. However, matte highlights have very smooth edges. In my opinion, the edges of the specular highlight
itself appear too sharp for the object to be matte. The sharpness of the edges of the specular highlight on the object indicates the object is
glossy, but the color of the highlight itself indicates the object is matte (which is another conflict).
My conclusion is that the lighting and haze effects are artificial... fake. The hoaxer must have not known two key things about light in order to
make the errors that are plainly obvious to me. They didn't blend the edges of the object enough when trying to fake atmospheric haze, and they
applied fake atmospheric haze to a glossy specular highlight which is just wrong.
Combine that with the obviously staged position of the UFO which I commented on earlier, and you have yourself a CGI hoax.
edit on 4-12-2012 by
Seeee because: (no reason given)