Chad Drone Omnibus..Chadsquito

Linda Moulton-Howe has asked me to post the following:

Email sent from Linda Mouton-Howe, 20JUN2007:

Hi, Mark,


I keep receiving email inquiries about your website "threads" concerning CGI explanation for the dragonfly-shaped aerial objects, both photographed, and not photographed, but described by eyewitnesses since 1987 in hangar at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. I don't know how to interface with your website threads, so wondered if you could place the following information for at least consideration about number of eyewitnesses and timeline of sightings? Thank you, Linda


For reference, a list of eyewitnesses and timeline so far from 1987 to 2007 (regardless of the CGI/Photoshop/viral video arguments).


1) Earthfiles 05/30/2007 —
Birmingham-Type "Drone" Seen At Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, in Mid-1980s
1987, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana: Eyewitness on air show tour who saw craft in hangar very similar to Birmingham, Alabama, dragonfly-shaped drone photographed in May 2006 by "John Smith." Have talked at length by phone and much email correspondence with Barksdale AFB eyewitness engineer who does not want to jeopardize his career, but wants me and the public to know what he saw. I have his full name, address and phone number.


2) Earthfiles 05/25/2007 —
Two More Eyewitnesses of Aerial "Drones" in 2005 and 2006
Birmingham, Alabama, May 2006: "John Smith" is a subcontractor for military and cannot jeoparize his career either. But he and I have corresponded by email frequently to date. I have his full name, address and phone number.


3) Report upcoming -
Tucson, Arizona, 1995: Dragonfly-shaped "drone" came down within 20 feet of hiker's head who talked to me last week about the encounter, how scared he was, but did not want the government coming down on his head if it was a secret government project no one was supposed to know about. He had a bad experience a decade earlier in the 1980s concerning a black military project and was threatened. But because I have been reporting eyewitnesses on the record, with or without, real names and locations, he agreed to talk with me because he wants to know what the dragonfly-shaped "drone" is as well. I have his full name, address, phone number, where he works and professional background.


4) Earthfiles 05/25/2007 —
Two More Eyewitnesses of Aerial "Drones" in 2005 and 2006
Sequoia National Park, May 2005: Shirley P., retired California state mental health worker. I have her full name, address, phone, employment details. She wants to apply for another state job and does not want any of the "drone" controversy to negatively affect her current application. But she became very upset when all the CGI and Photoshop arguments were being made and she knew she had seen with her own eyes, standing next to a Sequoia Park Ranger while asking for driving instructions out of the park, a strange aerial object that matched the Chad images of May 6, 2007. Shirley saw the same drone a second time when she stopped to get further driving instructions from a road crew. She did not have a camera with her either time.


5) Earthfiles • 06/08/2007 —
More Drone Photos and Other Eyewitnesses
Northridge, California, near big shopping mall, May 17, 2006: Robert Mariotti, C. Ht. D. D., Clinical Hypnotherapist and Doctor of Divinity, Canoga Park, California: Spoke with me on the record with name, profession, location about his sighting around 10 PM of a "horseshoe crab in profile" glowing apple green fluorescence that sparkled like snow globe glitter that just "popped in" to view, not traveling from anywhere. When Robert Mariotti saw my Earthfiles reports, he contacted me by email and phone to say the ring with the "wires curving up above" and the long tail was also the shape of the object inside the sparkling glitter, motionless about ten feet above a tree at the Corbin Avenue intersection near the Northridge Mall. Another driver next to Robert also saw the object, which after several seconds moved forward about five feet, he estimated, and then simply "popped out," disappeared.


6) Earthfiles • 06/08/2007 —
More Drone Photos and Other Eyewitnesses
Yosemite National Park, June 10, 2006: Mother and her two sons camping saw dragonfly-shaped "drone" for several minutes and the boys shone their flashlights on it which caused the "drone" to stop mid-air without sound or any perceivable motion. When it moved again, it jerkily went in another direction and repeated that odd behavior several times in response to the light from the flashlights shining on it. The mother sketched the aerial object which had an "arm" coming down from the ring that anticipated the evolving Big Basin images of June 2007. She has corresponded with me by email.


7) Earthfiles 05/16/2007 —
Updated: Odd Aerial "Drones"? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California
Lake Tahoe, May 5, 2007: MUFON Submitter 7013, two photographs of simpler version of the dragonfly-shaped "drone." Have had no independent communication with alleged photographer.


8) Earthfiles 05/16/2007 —
Updated: Odd Aerial "Drones"? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California
Bakersfield, California, general region, May 6, 2007: Chad took several clear, digital camera images of a dragonfly-shaped "drone" version more complicated than the Lake Tahoe images. I have corresponded several times with Chad, know his full name and might be talking with him in person in the future.


9) Earthfiles 05/21/2007 —
Updated: Odd Aerial "Drone"? Photographed Again Over Capitola, California
Capitola, California, east of Santa Cruz on Monterey Bay: "Rajman 1977" used his Konica Minolta DiMAGE X to photograph a dragonfly-shaped "drone" above a power pole that looks similar to the Chad photos, except the Capitola "drone" has two box-like appendages on the ring. I know his full name and have corresponded with him in email several times and hope to talk with him in the future on the record, whether he allows his real name to be used. This eyewitness, like most of the others, are angered by or scared of potential ridicule in the wake of all the CGI/Photoshop attacks.


10) Earthfiles 06/08/2007 —
More Drone Photos and Other Eyewitnesses
Big Basin Redwoods State Park, California, June 5, 2007: More complicated and more sinister-looking version of the dragonfly-shaped "drone" allegedly photographed by "Stephen" and submitted to UFOcasebook.com via female intermediary. I have not had independent communication with either.


11) Earthfiles 06/17/2007 —
More Big Basin, California, Bizarre "Drone" Images
Big Basin Redwoods State Park, California, June 5, 2007: Another eyewitness bicycling in a group, Ty B., emailed me on June 11, about his June 5th encounter three times with the same dragonfly-shaped "drone" in the "Stephen" images. Ty B. hard mailed to me 12 photograph prints of the object he said kept turning slowly in the air not too far above where he and his cycling buddies stopped to watch and he photographed. He is willing to be interviewed and is currently trying to get some of his colleagues to join him in an interview.


Linda Moulton Howe
Reporter and Editor
www.Earthfiles.com
and Investigative Reporter
Premiere Radio Networks;
Dreamland Online

You can see the full texts on www.earthfiles.com

I am doing this out of professional courtesy to Linda and to make sure our Members have access to all the information available. My personal opinion on what these images are does not have anything to do with the material posted above nor does AboveTopSecret.com endorse, or in any way comment on this issue.

Thanks for sharing that Springer.

I actually think if anyone has a case to sue, it would be LMH. Her 'reputation' might be severely damaged when this is all said and done...

LMH's letter, coupled with the Halo related Society of the Ancients website makes me think that either 'witnesses' are coming forward now and claiming to have seen these objects dating back to whenever LMH claims she has reports dating back to... or the Halo 3 designers found descriptions of crafts dating back to whenever, and designed their 'craft' accordingly...

The image that is the background image at: www....##.###/ar.jpg
just happens to be the zoomed, cropped section that "George typed into google" in the recent eartfiles report. " +x yx7+ "
www.earthfiles.com...

It is clear to me that someone is getting played here, and the more that comes out, Earthfiles isn't looking so good in the long run.

DocMoreau

For what will hopefully be the last time, ##.### has nothing to do with the Halo 3 ARG. Bungie has said so. It's the work of a guy named Matt Asher, who tried latching himself onto the Halo 2 ARG and is doing it again with Halo 3. He's just a leech looking for his 15 nanoseconds of fame. Apparently he's dragging ufology into his mess as well, this time around, including the drone photos.

Whether or not it's a hoax, it's not a Halo-related one.

Originally posted by alevar
For what will hopefully be the last time, ##.### has nothing to do with the Halo 3 ARG. Bungie has said so. It's the work of a guy named Matt Asher, who tried latching himself onto the Halo 2 ARG and is doing it again with Halo 3. He's just a leech looking for his 15 nanoseconds of fame. Apparently he's dragging ufology into his mess as well, this time around, including the drone photos.

Whether or not it's a hoax, it's not a Halo-related one.

Alevar,
I understand that you are frustrated that everyone is falling for the ##.### link, or whatever. But if you look closer at what I was saying is that the background image is a crop of the image that LMH is saying that someone named George found a code in that he typed into Google and found links to the Nasa Clementine probe. The ##.### site was up before the "George" person ever contacted LMH/Earthfiles. Perhaps "George" is "Chad" who is Matt Asher, or perhaps not... all I am saying is that Earthfiles reputation (which to some, already was nonexistant) is going to take a beating over all this.

Plus, the coincidence of the cropped image blowup having the same code is very strange... don't you think?

I am not sure of any of it, but it is my educated belief that the drones are CGI, that the ufo community (alternative media) is being mocked by these fake photos, and that unless we mention every weird coincidence, including those that involve outside hoaxers than the original hoaxers, we will not determine the truth about the origin of these images and the reason they are out there.

Thanks for the input about ##.###, but I think just because Bungie says so, doesn't mean that it isn't a part of the hoax at large, an unauthorized addition to the hoax, so to speak.

Doc Moreau

You're right, it looks like l jumped the gun on your post. You raise some good points, and I agree. Well said.

BIG NEWS:

I have been in contact with a VERY HIGHLY PLACED (ILM STUDIOS quality and former employee) CGI artist in the UK who has not only reproduced Chad's initial "drone" in 2 hours of work, he has made an additional renering in whch the drone image is PERFECT. He corrected all the lighting/focal errors Chad left in his original.

He has REPRODUCED Chad's (done by him in 2 hours) and made a "PERFECT" version to show how GOOD it could have looked IF Chad was an expert and willl be posting here by tomorrow. I have seen them and it's AMAZING!

STAY TUNED, RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD.

Springer...

[edit on 6-20-2007 by Springer]

In 2hrs... Wow, can't wait to see an expert version of it. I have a pretty good working model as well, though I'll probably never be finished with it lol... may post it in my UFO Art thread one day

I’m sure I’m not the first to notice the following pattern in Linda Howe’s timeline:

Witnesses without photos, just narrative:

Louisiana mid ’80s: full name, address, phone

Birmingham ’06: full name, address, phone

Tucson ’95: full name, address, phone

Sequoia ’05: full name, address, phone

Northridge ’06: public disclosure of name, contact info, professional practice (free advertising?)



Witnesses with photos:

Lake Tahoe: “no independent communication”

Chad: full name, “corresponded several times”

Rajman: full name, email

Stephen: “have not had independent communication”

Ty: email

I’m afraid Linda’s become a hoax magnet, and unfortunately she still doesn’t seem to realize it yet. Definitely looking forward to the Chad redux!

C2C DOA or how ‘Chad’ faked it…

www.dashdotslash.net...


Springer approached me a few weeks back with the intention of me basically in a nice way I suppose ‘putting my money where my mouth was’ and replicating the C2C photos 1st put out by ’Chad’. As I had a lot on with my last DVD release (came out Monday by the way ), it sort of had to wait a little while. However once the DVD was out I had a couple of hours to try and replicate it. (Feel free to buy it from www.kurvstudios.com (url OK'ed by Springer ) by the way ... just look for the Mudbox ones on the front page, ok advert over back on track. lol)

By doing this (bearing in mind that I took only 2 hours to render and composite the photos due to time being short) I learned a few things that to my mind unequivocally prove the images are faked. ‘Chad’ cocked up right royally and there’s evidence of this in the 1st images. Rather than re-render in Maxwell (which when used for high quality renders usually likes to take between 12-24 hours, but gives perfect results), he did a ‘bodge job’ to save himself render time.

Without this turning into an ‘advert’, let me tell you what I used to make this image. Everything was done within 3d studio max 8, using a render engine called ‘Maxwell’ (the light simulator). Whereas other render engines (the things that turn the 3d model into a picture to see rather than being just within the application itself viewport) ‘fake’ real lighting, Maxwell ‘simulates’ it, with some very complex algorithms indeed.

This means Maxwell is MUCH slower by far, but with a shorter ‘set up time’ before hitting the render button, and gives as near real life perfect results as you can get without spending a fair bit of time. There were certain things’ in the images by ‘Chad’ that screamed ‘Maxwell’ at me. This isn’t something that’s easy to put into words; it’s more of an experience thing from being round the 3d block a fair bit.

This is the workflow I used to come up with 1st my recreation, and then I’ll outline how I realized ‘Chad’ had ‘cocked up’.


The main model you see is a combination of a one someone posted here in a thread and some changes and additions of my own. While it is easy to replicate the model for any competent 3d modeler, time was of the essence for this and bearing in mind that apps can easily handle above a billion polygons at the moment, then geometry’ isn’t an issue. (In fact just last night I hit 1.2 BILLION polygons in a test I was doing for a job. I do have the screenshot in case anyone doubts this BTW.) So there was no point reinventing the wheel for this.

With the model finished inside of 3d studio max I added some UV’s to it. These tell any textures I may add where on the model and hence in 3d space to be.
My second job was to place the model to match the imported background shot I’d be using (in this case ‘Chad’s’ with the model painted out. This wasn’t in the renders just for reference.) I matched my angle to make it pleasing and similar enough, and check my camera was set to a 35 mm lens type.

Next up I started doing one of two passes I did for the render. A pass can be broken down into things like the specular reflections, shadows, diffuse (actual color info), and ambient occlusion etc. But as it turns out ‘Chad’ was lazy and went for a ‘beauty render’ (all except the ambient occlusion pass at once ...but more of this in a second.) Normally each render pass of a frame or a single frame for a still image, is a separate image that is later used in compositing.
What is ‘compositing? It’s basically sticking images of the same thing with light and shadow and the surface itself reacting in different ways together to create a realistic final image. In this case I used Photoshop. Firstly because everyone and his dog has it, and secondly because it’s not outside of the price range of a young modeler. Using different blending modes, the image is built up from these.


[edit on 21/6/2007 by the

[edit on 21/6/2007 by the secret web]

[edit on 6-21-2007 by Springer]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

What is ‘compositing? It’s basically sticking images of the same thing with light and shadow and the surface itself reacting in different ways together to create a realistic final image. In this case I used Photoshop. Firstly because everyone and his dog has it, and secondly because it’s not outside of the price range of a young modeler. Using different blending modes, the image is built up from these.

For my ‘Ambient occlusion’ pass … Which proved to be one of the most useful things to help bust this one… I used the internal mental ray render engine in 3d max. The reason for this is it is simple to set up and would perfectly match the Maxwell render later. An ‘Ambient occlusion’ pass, which is also sometimes called a ‘dirt pass’ gives a completely white image with the color getting darker the nearer together two bits of geometry are.
So if you have a corner of a room for example you would see a dark grey / black color fading quickly out to white where the flat of the wall would be. You can see an example of this below.


Using Maxwell was a matter of finding a DEFAULT SHADER from the Maxwell internal settings that matched as near as possible ‘Chad’s’. I expected to have to do some serious tweaking and rewriting here. But was surprised to find it a pretty damn spot on match when composited later. The chances of any ‘real object’ having this shader are remote...so remote you’d probably have more chances of winning your local lottery two weeks running!
As time was of the essence and I didn’t wish to tie up my PC while work is busy right now, I cut a few corners and instead of a 12-24 hour render in Maxwell I set it to only simulate for about 15 mins. This is so short it’s unreal. No one in their right mind would set it like that unless in a rush (and I was.) Bear in mind I expected to have to set it away on the ‘main render’ overnight… it turns out I didn’t…. again our friend ‘Chad’ was in a hurry as well. Below you case the result of this render before compositing.

www.dashdotslash.net...

As I rendered out to a floating point image format, the light levels (which can be mixed in real time in Maxwell by the way) could be sorted out later.

In Maxwell I’d set it to use a generic outdoor HDRI (high radiance floating point image format) that I found free online somewhere ages back. I keep a few hundred of them handy on my drive all the time… both free and commercial ones.) Using a HDRI for my illumination and reflections /refractions etc means I get the benefit while rendering not just of Maxwell’s built in simulation, but of a quicker light set up.

In Maxwell you can set the time, location in the world and date to match any given point on the planet at any time as perfectly as currently possible. I set these to match the info that came with the ‘Chad’ images and took a basic rough guess at the time from the photos. I also made a rough guess at the ‘air type and quality’ and set these as well.
Now with all my ‘pieces in place’ I set about the composite.

For Chad’s image as stated I used his image with the ‘ufo’ (and I use that term in its loosest extent!) painted out. I imported the renders into Photoshop along with the background image and firstly set the levels of the ‘beauty pass’ to match Chad’s as close as possible (about 2 mins max by the way), then added ambient occlusion pass over the top. This was colorized to a sort of cross between a light brown and a bluish sort of color to give a decent look of dirt etc in the corners etc of the craft.

www.dashdotslash.net...

In my 1st attempt I realized something starring me in the face! ‘Chad’ had set his samples too low (i.e. used the default and didn’t know to increase them or simply forgot), so my ambient occlusion pass was much smoother quality…it looked too it looked too good to match.

[edit on 21/6/2007 by the secret web]

[edit on 21/6/2007 by the secret web]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

At this point I re-opened 3d max and made a ‘Amb Occ’ pass with defaults only, complete with that ’GRAINY LOOK’. (You can see this clearly in the originals first released…one of the biggest clues to bad CG.) I’ve shown both together above.

Once composited in place and a few level tweaks I had the image you saw at the beginning of this. The stuff done as tweaks to levels in Photoshop is really basic stuff anyone with basic knowledge could do in a few minutes. Bingo! One C2C craft!
Now please bear in mind that firstly Chad had god alone knows how long to render out and model for his images, I took a couple of hours only. Also bear in mind ‘Chad’ wasn’t replicating anything… he was creating from scratch which in my opinion is a heck of a lot easier.


Additional:


I decided before showing Springer the image I’d banged out, to do a render as I would have done it myself, to show how wrong ‘Chad’ got it due to either laziness or inexperience. I used the same model, same HDRI and an image I pulled from Google. In mine I split it into a few basic passes and wasn’t ‘replicating’ but giving a total simulation of how the light would behave if the craft was in the image I used. I knocked this out in about 15 -20 mins.

www.dashdotslash.net...

Conclusions (or the bit for lazy people or those too busy to read the rest…..)
Chad messed up in some key areas…
1 – He lit his model too ‘light’ and didn’t know, or realize that he had saved it to a HDRI or 32 bit floating point image he could have redone the light levels later without washing his images out..

2 – Chad isn’t a mental ray or Maxwell ‘guru’. (Render engines used and both freely available BTW). He messed up the ambient occlusion map by leaving it at default samples. This giving his early images a ‘grainy almost dirty’ look in the corners and crevices. This also explains the ‘blown out photo look’ they have as it was a simple way to cover up a whole load of problems.

3 – Chad is lazy or in a BIG hurry. Either that or doesn’t have a clue how to PROPERLY use his applications. This is clearly evident from number 4.

4 – Use of a ‘default’ pre-packed shader that comes with Maxwell 1.5. This screams ‘amateur night’ at me I’m afraid. What are the chances of a ‘real ufo’ being made of the same materials; with the same IOR (Jeff Rizz knows what I mean here I think), that Maxwell are simulating? Anyone want to put money on that one?
5 – Far from been an amazingly talented modeler /renderer / compositor, he was just another run of the mill guy in the field. No ‘leet dude’ who should be working for ILM here I’m afraid.

So in my professional opinion Chad was an amateur with about 6 – 12months experience most probably. Who has some ok modeling skills and no idea whatsoever of how to properly use his render engines. He obviously has a decent eye for design though to give him credit for that from a purely artistic point of view.
As they say in the Mythbusters TV series... this one is BUSTED. (If you’re still a believer these images are real after this thread nothing I or anyone else can say or do will convince you.)

Wayne…

PS I just want to point out to anyone with suspicions that I’m not ‘Chad’. I’d like to think that being part was through the releases of my DVD tutorial series would go some way to prove that. Also do not fire ‘requests’ for images or poses of this craft, I do this for a living and really do not have time to debunk this any further. I feel I’ve done my ‘bit’. I should bill ‘Chad’ for my time… should he ever surface.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

OK Springer, hope thats not too long mate. I thought it better to be as in depth as I can without getting to 'techy'.

Wayne...

Originally posted by the secret web
OK Springer, hope thats not too long mate. I thought it better to be as in depth as I can without getting to 'techy'.

Wayne...

very nice. but as has been said with each "drone" recreation regardless of skill level; "so what?"

you've proven nothing to me other than the technology you've used can be used to recreate photoreal imagery.

and i don't think you mention the high level of compression on chad's jpg's, which were likely scans adding an additional level of pixel data loss and contributing to the painterly look of the image?

and you say "quality renders usually likes to take between 12-24 hours"

that's insane. i would hate to be your employer.

"In fact just last night I hit 1.2 BILLION polygons in a test"

ha! in max 8? i seriously doubt that! maybe zbrush or mudbox.

i could go on but don't have the time today...


[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

THANK YOU Wayne! That is a thorough, and very well done job! While we cam't pay you in cash we can pay you in those ever coveted ATS Points and I will.

Again, outstanding work and MUCH appreciated.

Springer...

spf33, and you are? Your credentials are? Your work can be viewed where?

So what?!

Did you READ the full post? The Chad image PERFECTLY MATCHES THE DEFAULT SETTING of the render program. HELLO?!

The man has the proof of the "billion polygon" statement, just because someone is your superior is no reason to be snotty mate.

Springer...

Originally posted by spf33

"In fact just last night I hit 1.2 BILLION polygons in a test"

Yeah.. well I can make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs, but you don't hear me bragging about it, Now do you? Your simplified arrogance is a stinky cologne.

Originally posted by Springer
spf33, and you are? Your credentials are? Your work can be viewed where?

springer, we've already done this dance. i've already given you a summation of my "credentials". i might even consider giving just you my contact info just to put this to rest.

Did you READ the full post? The Chad image PERFECTLY MATCHES THE DEFAULT SETTING of the render program. HELLO?!

yes, i read it. see, now if the guy were using the same exact 3d model that chad potentially used that might make some sense.

but to expect that wayne reproduced the chad mesh to such a meticulous and perfected level that it's surface responded and matched the "mesh" in the chad photos render with the maxwell default shader is truly laughable.

you don't clearly don't understand the variables at work in 3d here.

The man has the proof of the "billion polygon" statement, just because someone is your superior is no reason to be snotty mate.

ridiculous assumption.
i'm sick of the disinfo and the ignorance.

max 8 will fall to it's knees whimpering like a little girl doing anything other than maybe opening and viewing a static screen of 1 billion poly's. but to imply that max 8 can doing anything resembling "work" with that amount of polys is unfair.


[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

Am I missing something? THESE renders are supposed to be "perfect"?

Couple things that I noticed in the first second of looking at these (and this is coming from soemone who never needed convincing that Chad's images were BS):

1) Your images don't look even remotely photoreal. Sorry. I'm genuinely dissapointed after expecting a thorough Chad debunking based on Springer's comments last night. They look like a screenshot from a PS3 game. They're overly textured (in your first shot, at least), overly colored, and overly everthing-else that "movie-style" CG tends to be. "Too much" is the only word that comes to mind when I see your stuff. At the very least, Chad's images were clearly not guilty of "trying too hard". I guess that's why so many people have been duped by them, because unlike movie CG, they aren't throwing every effect in the book at every pixel on the screen.

2) Your whole tangent on GI-produced noise is interesting reading but clearly a misinterpretation of the images. I've got the original C2C Chad images in Photoshop right now and I'd bet anything that we're looking at JPEG compression, not noise. Perhaps you have a leter generation of the image, but in the originals from C2C's site, the artifacting is clearly boxy and "band-y", which is a telltale sign of JPEG, not low GI samples. Besides, if you look at the other Chad images, it's clear that they suffer from too much compression, not too much noise.

3) You're missing a lot of what the Chad images actually do right, such as chromatic abboration and purple fringing. Numerous photographers mentioned this on other forums and on Coast to Coast when they first appeared. In the first image you created (the one using Chad's background), notice all the blue around the trees as they blend into the sky. Your craft doesn't have any of that.

4) These images are a sign that "out of the box" HDRI is not a magic bullet. From what I know from some friends that work in the industry, this is a common mistake. The color temperature in these images doesn't even look remotely appropriate for the background plates. It's one of the numerous reasons why your images just look "stamped on."

5) Springer said your images were going to have better focus effects-- so why does yours look even sharper than Chad's? Again, it looks like a PS3 object stamped onto a photo.

6) HDRI or not, there's no way the underside of the craft would be bright friggen blue. People criticized Chad's craft underside for being too well lit (one of the reasons I know the images are fake), but at least they aren't neon blue. Come on, man, I'm sure you can do better than this. Besides, it's right above trees-- there'd be a lot of green light bouncing around in there as well. Your settings must be completely out of whack because "light bouncing" shouldn't mean "everything is suddenly a mirror". I would guess your HDRI solution isn't taking into account the actual 3D placement of the color in the scene (such as the blue being above, the green being below, etc.).

Conclusion: I can't believe I'm actually defending Chad's absurd images, but they're considerably more realistic than yours. Sorry man, I really do think you're a good artist-- and I like these images from an artistic perspective-- but judging by this alone (I've never seen any of your other work), photorealism isn't your strength.

BTW - Please don't ban me for this, I'm just being totally honest. I want to see this Chad BS squashed as much as everyone else and this is just a big dissapointment for me. Wayne -- I'm sure you're a nice guy, please understand my comments are intended as "honest criticism" only.

You should check out the work of Saladfingers, who, without even trying too hard, is already very close to totally replicating what Chad did. His use of GI is definitely a lot more convincing.

spf33 -- I've seen your comments before both here and on other forums and I gotta say -- You're the man! You took the words right out of my mouth. Your research has been hugely helpful so far. Keep it up brother!

These new rendered pictures dont even play in the same league with the original ones. Nice try though, but keep at it.