Exellent UFO footage out of Utah taken in 2016 just now posted Clear What do you think ATS?

a reply to: TruthS3rum

Look up chromatic aberration.

originally posted by: TruthS3rum
a reply to: dragonridr

The reason you need a high-speed camera to see a bullet in flight is not just because it's really fast, but also because it's really small. A much larger object moving at a similar speed would be much easier to see.

The object's movement from frame to frame is commensurate with its purported speed. There is nothing unusual about this.

Wrong i can set up the camera right next to the gun size is irrelevant. what counts is how much information i can store in a very short period of time. The faster something moves the more frames i need to capture its motion. here this shoud give you an idea this is taken from a drone the person that uploaded it wants to know why its choppy. He had this effect every time he turns the camera. The reason it occurs is at 60 fps there is motion that is missing in the video. Our eyes notice that the picture seems to start and stop as information was lost. This is the same thing that would have happened in this video. We would see the object jump 60 times in 2 miles. We would not even connect it to a moving object we would simply see flashes in a straight line.

forum.dji.com...

Well looking at the vid again in slow mo.
The object is blurred in every frame and does jump, so the speeds are possible.
I doubt it's CGI but I'm a photographer not a CGI expert.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

BASSPLYR, how does this halo effect explain the fact that the darkened outline gradually disappears from the front of the object --> rearward as the object gets closer and closer to the camera lens—before motion blur starts to render it unrecognizable? Any thoughts on this?

a reply to: dragonridr

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "information i can store in a very short period of time".

The amount of information you can store is determined by the resolution of the capture, the capture codec/algorithm, the physical optics, and the frame rate—nothing more. Shutter speed assists with the capture of fast-moving objects and is not intrinsically bound to frame rate:



And you don't see it "jump" 60 times in two miles. It really only starts to jump once its distance to the camera has considerably decreased, and its angle of incidence has correspondingly increased.

I can prove it's fake in more ways than one.

1: That camera has a rolling shutter which means the image is captured line by line. On fast moving objects this creates rolling shutter artifacts such as shearing and bending. This object shows zero signs of rolling shutter artifacts meaning it was digitally composited into the video. Unfortunately After Effects doesn't yet have a plugin that will simulate rolling shutter artifacts...

2: The motion blur is fake and badly so. Looks like a standard motion blur you'd enable in Adobe After Effects, but they bumped up the "samples per frame" a few notches. The algorithm that applies the color blending of the object with the background is linear, and too perfectly so. In the real world the blurry part of motion blur is imperfect due to the atmosphere, variations in the background, variations in the camera's sensor, variations in lighting, and many other variables. It's not just "take RGB value from object minus some Alpha value, and add to RGB value of background" like you see in the video.

3: The match moving effort was good, but not flawless. For those unfamiliar, in order to make a fake object appear in a real video you must calculate the motion of the camera by motion tracking the scene, and then apply that motion to the fake object so the object moves with the camera. This is extremely difficult to do perfectly when the camera has a lot of shake. Fortunately for these hoaxers, the video is on a stable drone with a camera on a gimbal, so faking this is as easy as it gets. Usually I would just right off any UFO caught on a camera with a gimbal, or a camera that was on a tripod, simply because it makes it too easy to fake the UFO, but seeing as though gimbals are now very cheap and readily available I would consider moving forward.

With that said, when you are going to add a fake object to a real video you have to really plan out where in the video your object is going to be in terms of distance. This is because of the parallax effect - objects in the background move slower than objects in the foreground. In this particular video, the furthest object is the blue sky in the background with clouds, it moves the slowest out of everything in the scene when the camera shakes or moves. Second furthest is the mountains in the back, which moves a little faster than the sky, but not by much. Third is the rolling hills in the middle which moves faster than the mountains. Then you get right in front of the camera where there are some really close trees and bushes, they move the fastest, etc.. The closer to the camera you get, the faster the objects move when the camera shakes or moves.

If you want to add a fake object to this scene, you can't just motion track any part of the video to apply that too the fake object. You have to motion track the area of the scene that is at the distance you want the fake object to be. If you want the object to appear in the sky behind the mountains, you don't want to motion track the rolling hills in front, because the object will move when the hills move, and not when the sky moves, it would be bouncing around everywhere. So you want to motion track the clouds in the sky, and then apply that motion to the fake object so it appears to be in the sky.

The same is true if you want to make the object appear closer to the camera, you would motion track a part of the video that is closer to the camera, not further away, because the motion would not look right. It would break the laws of perspective and motion. The parallax effect would be off.

In this particular video they have made things difficult for themselves - the object is supposed to travel from the background to the foreground. This creates and interesting problem, as the UFO gets closer to the camera, its relation to the scene should change too. Do they track the background, foreground, or the middle, or what? I know how this should be done, but I don't think they did it (or they did it incorrectly) from my analysis of the video. They would have to track all parts of the scene differently and apply it at different distances, or just track the sky and make a 3D path. It looks like they tracked the sky only. So when the UFO gets close to the camera, particularly when the object appears to bank and turn, there is very small camera shaking movement that doesn't affect the UFO, which proves the UFO is not really in the scene. I know exactly how much that UFO should have moved based on the ground it is above, but it moved only the amount the sky moved. So its proof of a fake composited object. I could make a video that points this out, but the shake is so small it would just not be believed by the uninitiated.

The main problem stems from motion tracking a 2D scene that is really 3D - you only get 2D movements X and Y. In this case they should have tracked the sky and then set up a 3D path and 3D camera in After Effects which would follow the sky, and the object would follow that 3D path from back to front. When the object reached above the hills, because it was a 3D path and 3D camera, it should have applied somewhat proper parallax. That just doesn't seem to be what they did.

4: Probably the most damning of all the evidence for me... If you download the raw video and find the exact point the UFO is first visible in the scene, you will see it is 100% motionless for 4 frames before it starts to move. After that point it moves a little every single frame. This evidence really hits home for me for a couple reasons... I have done this before by mistake, and I think they did it by mistake too.

When you have a long video, and at some point in the video you want an object to slowly appear, you scrub to the timestamp you want the object to appear and you place the object there (it will sit there the entire video). Then you set the opacity of the object to 0% so that it is not visible. Then you animate the opacity so that it increases from 0% to 100% over a few frames when you want it to appear. So when the video is rendered you don't see the object, and then slowly the object starts to become visible at the timestamp you want.

A common problem I have come across with After Effects is when you use the slider UI control to change the opacity instead of changing the value directly by typing in that value. There has been times I meant to change the opacity to 0% but it actually only went to 4% or some very small value that I didn't notice until after rendering the video. I would notice a ghost of the object in the entire movie, and then when its cue to come into video arrived it would show up and start moving... I think that may have happened here. It's quite funny, you can see the UFO sit there for 4 frames before it's movement animation started, and then its opacity animation to make it seem like its getting closer and more visible.

I would call this a fake, easily so.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

I think it has to do with the camera and focus issues around bright objects as they contrast with a darker background. Look into chromatic abberation. It also creates a red shifted halo too. It does explain a bulk of it.

Again im not weighing in on whether its a real or cgi object. It possibly being a halo artifact actually leans the argument towards an actual object but not what it could be. I'm open to it being just about anything from bug to ufo. It doesnt look like the objects ive witnessed on many occasions (anyone who knows me here on ats knows I've seen a lot of interesting things) but im sure I've also not seen everything thats out there in our crazy world.

Can halo or ring like artifacts also be found with compression issues or from inserting a image into video? I bet something similar is a possibility.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Can you show us your example? You make sound pretty easy.
For a pro it's most probably faster for you to show us your example than write that response?

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Regarding which point should I make the example?

Here is a great video to understand my point #1:

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Man, and I thought my posts were long. xD

So, in essence, you're saying that Sam and Jimmy have lied through their teeth multiple times? Just out of sheer, morbid curiosity, how would you rationalize that? They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that the footage is unaltered, and coincidentally, there is no trend or history whatsoever of video authors releasing fake footage before putting their real names out on the street for future reprisal/shame/condemnation/threats. Personally, I'm not convinced in the slightest.

As to your 4th point, however, which frames are you referring to, exactly? What are their numbers?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

The point I'm making is that so called CGI experts enter these threads and state they could make the "exact" same video's on their Commodore 64's.
They never show their own work to show how easy it is.

Being a photographer "to me" the motion blur looks correct and what I'd expect for a fast moving object.
I don't do videography or CGI effects so I'd like to see someone add say a square block or football and track and match it to the video presented.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

Why do any of the famous hoaxers do it?

Why does SecureTeam10 on YouTube do it? Why do 3rdPhaseOfMoon brothers do it? Why did the special effects students and their teacher do it on the Jerusalem UFO over the Dome of the Rock? What about the 2007 California Drone Hoax?

Some do it for money. Some do it for fame (their footage or images become famous and they do interviews about it on various UFO shows). Some do it for laughs. Some do it to try and test their special effects skills on the public, or to prove their skills. It's a mixed bag.

Yes I have seen liars lie directly into the camera regarding UFO hoaxes. Some of them love the attention.

The frames I am talking about:
6446 there is nothing.
6447 the object instantly pops into view (opacity probably set to 5% or so instantly)
6448 stationary (while trees in foreground move and camera is moving)
6449 stationary (while trees in foreground move and camera is moving)
6450 stationary (while trees in foreground move and camera is moving)
6451 instantly starts moving every frame after that, with a little blur applied (probably motion blur algorithm kicking in)

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: TruthS3rum
I think it has to do with the camera and focus issues around bright objects as they contrast with a darker background. Look into chromatic abberation. It also creates a red shifted halo too. It does explain a bulk of it.

Oh ok! Chromatic aberration I've definitely heard of.

I can't seem to convince myself that this is chromatic aberration. I don't think chromatic aberration would explain the proportional darkening of all three color channels relative to the background. I've looked at a number of different examples now, but I can't find any that seem to parallel the darkened outline of the object, or that present a proportional color relationship with any of the halo's surroundings. I'm not an optics specialist either though, so I'll just have to let it ride for now and see what others think.

I definitely appreciate your insight and your viewpoint, though.

Here you go: streamable.com...

Of course, the interpolation applied to zoom in, and then rendering into H.426, then uploading to Streamable which likely applies its own compression/processing to MPEG-DASH format or something, it loses some of the detail. So its advised to look at these frames in this area with your own software on the raw video to get a clearer picture.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Yes I have seen liars lie directly into the camera regarding UFO hoaxes. Some of them love the attention.

Could you possibly name some of them please? I know of Stan Romanek, but that's it. Who else?

I see the 4 frames you're talking about, but I'm not interpreting them the same way you are. Technically, the object doesn't completely lack motion in those frames. It actually fades a little more into view, one frame after the other, which could conceivably be something like the craft beginning to lift above the treeline. However, there's so much pixel noise at that scale, that for me, it makes it difficult to determine much of anything.

Here's 6446-6451 in the raw, looped forwards and backwards, just so everyone can see for themselves:

a reply to: TruthS3rum

Yes, Blake Cousins and Brett Cousins, they are brothers that run the 3rdPhaseOfMoon YouTube channel. They make UFO hoaxes for a living, and do interviews about the ones they claimed to have caught. Some of their videos are provided to them, and a lot of them are their own production.

It's not difficult at all for me to see. The UFO instantly appears, and remains stationary for 4 frames no matter how much the camera moves during those frames, which proves the object is not really in the scene at all, but added on top of the video.



This is why I keep the tree in the view, so you can get a perspective of how much the camera moves, but the UFO doesn't. You can see the ground and the tree moving down and to the right, but the UFO remains locked to the edge of the image. That means the UFO is not in the scene, but on top.

Also, Sam Chortek's YouTube channel shows he "liked" a video tutorial for After Effects. This is an instant disqualification for me. I realize he is in the film industry, but the video just isn't that good, and this is more evidence to consider.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

While you're focusing on the foreground tree, what's happening to all the background?

Jeez us Christ!!! Feel responsible,for starting WW3, to TruthS3rum, I am the fella, 'paul' who's jaw dropped,at your analysis,and messaged you,and I am still in your corner fella, 100%,plus, BASSPLYA, as well, I concur, (and as a self confessed lurker,on aviation,and Physics) I am someone,'simply,trying to learn,self educate' etc, still brimful,of,pythagerous'therom,binary,dinary, etc etc,I am in AWE, of you guys n gals,
Can someone,anyone? ,tell me ( a layman) is,if, ? Truth is correct,can that specific artifact,( the gravitational angle?) be CG bloody I'd, into that footage? , it either is? , or isn't, ? The smoking Gun, is? This shttt? Obvious and apparent? CGI, ? Or, ? Is there sone debate? My head is spinning. Thank you all