Frightning Video of an creepy "Alien-thing" climbing down a apartments wall in Russia

What makes me suspicious right off the bat is that the camera is hand held but it isn't following the action at all. It suggests that the building was filmed first without much fore-thought and then the creature was CGI'd in later. This is most apparent at the beginning where the building is full framed and the creature walks into the field of view. In a real situation wouldn't the camera person be more interested in filming the creature than the a building?

StargateSG7
reply to post by LionEatsSheep

 

So it's either REAL...or done with a real High end piece of software such as
Autodesk Inferno/Flame and at almost $200,000.00+, they're NOT CHEAP!!!!!

Flame set ups currently don't go for that amount at the moment, and Flame won't turn a bad artist into a good artist or even a good artist into a more competent artist. It will let you do passes quicker, stack more layers, and has nice toys, but a good artist should know how to keep their workflow simple in the first place.

Flame is good because of its real time processing, and that's why it's often used for demoing to clients or finishing big shots off. If you're using AFX, Nuke or some other comp system and you're putting the finishing touches or asking a client a lot of questions you don't want to be waiting on something to render especially if it has a huge number of elements scattered throughout piles of nodes and layers.

There is nothing in the clip we just viewed that couldn't be produced in almost any other comp system, and there are plenty of editors and comp artists in Russia that produce more complex shots than this every day with only out of the box After Effects and a 3D app.

Further to that, am not sure why you imply that adding noise and compression artifacts to an image is difficult? Or how you could evaluate the accuracy of noise and lighting without using mathematical models, because my eyes are pretty forgiving with bad VFX and I think everyone else's are too.

Sorry to sound like am lecturing, but it just seems like you're misleading people to me? Though perhaps it isn't intentional.

reply to post by dainoyfb


I was wondering about that myself, BUT...here is a frame from the video I have enhanced
in a few ways which shows the CONSISTENT macroblocking and colour artifacts throughout the
image which is either a product of a HIGHLY SKILLED image compositor....OR....this is a real creature!

Here is the photo below:

I'll just get another vodka before I make up my mind about this.

As the thing was clearly on its way down I wonder where it went after it got on the ground. Did it slip through a drainage grill and how was it not seen passing people's windows. Had I seen something like that I would have yelled to everyone to look, yet the camera guy just passively films away - odd!

reply to post by StargateSG7


What needs to be done is a ROTOSCOPE

See link:
en.wikipedia.org...

on the ENTIRE video to trace the leg movements and that splotchy part
that SURROUNDS the creature in contrasting colours . The movement of
the legs and the splotchy part will INDICATE pretty clearly whether it's a
a composite or a real. If the surrounding splotch (dark red part around legs)
stays the same size and shape, its an image composite, BUT if it mimics the
shape AND size of the LEGS then it's either a HIGHLY SKILLED animator or its real!

Stick insect on a miniature building?

Pinke

StargateSG7
reply to post by LionEatsSheep

 

So it's either REAL...or done with a real High end piece of software such as
Autodesk Inferno/Flame and at almost $200,000.00+, they're NOT CHEAP!!!!!

Flame set ups currently don't go for that amount at the moment, and Flame won't turn a bad artist into a good artist or even a good artist into a more competent artist. It will let you do passes quicker, stack more layers, and has nice toys, but a good artist should know how to keep their workflow simple in the first place.

Flame is good because of its real time processing, and that's why it's often used for demoing to clients or finishing big shots off. If you're using AFX, Nuke or some other comp system and you're putting the finishing touches or asking a client a lot of questions you don't want to be waiting on something to render especially if it has a huge number of elements scattered throughout piles of nodes and layers.

There is nothing in the clip we just viewed that couldn't be produced in almost any other comp system, and there are plenty of editors and comp artists in Russia that produce more complex shots than this every day with only out of the box After Effects and a 3D app.

Further to that, am not sure why you imply that adding noise and compression artifacts to an image is difficult? Or how you could evaluate the accuracy of noise and lighting without using mathematical models, because my eyes are pretty forgiving with bad VFX and I think everyone else's are too.

Sorry to sound like am lecturing, but it just seems like you're misleading people to me? Though perhaps it isn't intentional.

---

No intention to mislead, but it's just the RANDOMNESS of the noise I see and NOT the
usual Adobe Aftereffects/Blender/etc add-noise function which does it for me!
Those programs produce fake noise which which to my eyes still looks kinda fake.
In this video, the noise looks pretty real on the building walls AND the creature.

I'm just saying that when you combine the motion, the video noise, the compression
artifacts and other intangibles, it look pretty real...HOWEVER...i'm wondering WHY this
building is being followed by the camera rather aimlessly. That sort of raises my suspicions!

Blender is really hard to learn and use and while I don't use inferno/flame/smoke/flint programs
I've seen them in action and they make even mediocre animators/compositers look pretty
good because the workflow and rendering/re-rendering is so streamlined and fast so
that many iterations can be done QUICKLY!

Whoever did this is pretty good because normally I'd have an art director, a compositor
and a guy that's good at faking non-linear motion in on this render. If one person did this
he should be hired by any commercial house pretty fast cuz he's got timing, lighting and
motion down pat!

It just doesn't feel CGI to me.Extraterrestrial maybe...

reply to post by StargateSG7


---

I just had a brain-explosion on how to CHEAPLY and EASILY fake video noise
and compression artifacts.

Render your finished 3D animated footage and copy/stream it out to a
DVD disc recorder, a DV-tape recorder, a cable DVR box or an internet
video streaming app which have such bad compression artifacts and
colour-reduction that they can make video look like it came from
a cheap cell phone camera or handy-cam. Those compression algorithms
in such boxes will create a splotchy video noise which can actually ENHANCE
realism in a 3D animation render. then you copy the video BACK into your
computer for final upload to youtube which will probably add even MORE
compression artifacts!

Night time: Check
Grainy footage: Check
Urban environment yet only one witness: Check
Person who filmed it doesn't want to be identified ( even though they live in a flat, and if handled properly and real, this could move them into a mansion): Check.

Come on people; there are clearly ATS members who know more than us (lay people) about modern CGI telling you it could be CGI but you still see a demon/extra-terrestrial.

Apparently there are over 1 billion phones with cameras out there and another 1 billion standalone cameras/CCTV units so statistically you have 2 choices if you believe:

These things are very rare and this guy got extraordinarily lucky capturing it
These things are common but somehow they manage to evade the 7 billion humans and their cameras.

1 in a billion (on both counts above) or entirely possible using CGI..what is the rational conclusion?

StargateSG7
No intention to mislead, but it's just the RANDOMNESS of the noise I see and NOT the
usual Adobe Aftereffects/Blender/etc add-noise function which does it for me!

That doesn't mean Flame or another piece of kit is required. AFX is perfectly capable of creating per channel noise mattes and compression. The medium used is also relatively forgiving.

while I don't use inferno/flame/smoke/flint programs
I've seen them in action and they make even mediocre animators/compositers look pretty
good

If you don't use any of the autodesk post production suite, what makes you think it would be needed here?

I want to meet the autodesk sales person that got to you ahaha

Look not being rude, but maybe if you haven't looked at compositing for a while it's time to pick up some books from Amazon and join some communities. Either that or I am completely insane and wrong about piles of things.

Anyone notice how the hands/feet all seem to be grabbing at places on the building that aren't just flat? Like the edges of the windows and building.

txjab512
Anyone notice how the hands/feet all seem to be grabbing at places on the building that aren't just flat? Like the edges of the windows and building.

Yep, very clever if it is CGI....

Some posters seem overly concerned with why the person was filming the building in the first place, could be any number of reasons... Maybe he was just trying out his new camcorder or phone or maybe he's a peeping tom hoping to get some footage of some hot Russian babe undressing in the apartment opposite... Who knows.... People are strange!

One thing I do know, this scares the crap out of me and I'm glad I watched it this morning and not late tonight.

Watched the vid, haven't read the thread, but of course one thing Hoaxes it:

Shadows.

The creature has no shadow, even when it is climbing down the lighted side of the building. For someone who took the time to make it look like it was grabbing on to surfaces, and to make it walk past lighted windows on the dark side of the building (that was nice) why didn't they think of adding shadows??

Is there someone here on this thread or ATS that can make a comparable movie in the same circumstances to show how it is done. I certainly have no idea how to do it. This way I could at least be satisfied it could be/was faked.

As a fake/CGI clip it is excellent.

I think it looks a lot like CGI…. and the building makes it a lot more easy the way we are looking at it…. It's a simple geometric shape and extremely easy to map out and apply a 3d object to.

So my educated guess would be cgi all the way.

I've seen a video of one of those climb up a building a year or more ago....

reply to post by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO


If it's a fake it's good. Notice the guy with the camera follows it even after it gets blurry round the front of the building.

Looks like a shadow to me. I am sometimes twenty get tall ...or at least my shadow has been twenty feet long. Someone else say this too please. I don't think I'll get much support with my view but I'm sticking with shadow. You really can't see it on the dark side of the building.

Watched the video a few good times.

It's a very good fake. But I don't see the point in going to all that effort to achieve this.

It is also, very good creature design. It's movements and dynamics are impressive.