Moon UFOs (Or why would someone fake this)

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know what's the effect of a rolling shutter, I know why it happens and I know why they use it, but I think that guy's speculation is far from convincing, as we don't know what type of camera the video creator supposedly used, so that part of the video is not impossible, it's only less likely.

a reply to: ArMaP

Not exactly. It must be clear we are talking about video cameras not just still cameras.

I listed all the issues with finding global shutter video cameras. They are old. They are rare. Require film. The ones available now, modern or not, are very expensive and require large rolls of film. They are almost never digital.

Global shutters are made possible with film because the light can be saved onto the film instantly all at once through a chemical process. Doing this at a high enough rate to create a video is easy. However, most are limited to lower frame rates because the film needs to move quickly through the camera, and a physical shutter needs to open and close each frame.

Global shutters become very difficult to create with digital cameras because every single pixel of the photodetector array needs to be read by a microprocessor and written to memory (this is a bottleneck). For example my smartphone has a 12 megapixel camera. That means its 4000 pixels wide and 3000 pixels tall for a total of 12,000,000 little tiny light sensors that need to write at least 3 bytes of RGB data each to memory which is 36,000,000 bytes. It needs to do this 30 times a second for 30 FPS video which would be 1,080,000,000‬ bytes per second or 1080 MB/s. That would require a very fast processor or multiple processors. It also requires very fast memory. To put things in perspective some of the fastest flash memory available is limited to 380 MB/s.

To make digital video possible with the processor and memory technology we have today they normally don't read all the pixel sensors at once into memory, they read row by row which reduces the amount of data passing through at any given time. They call that a rolling shutter, even though there is no real physical shutter.

Captain Disillusion's evidence of the lack of rolling shutter distortion is not proof of a hoax by itself. It simply increases the probability of it being a hoax because it rules out the usage of the most common video cameras available, and points towards either a rare camera being used, or a virtual camera via software.

In digital effects software there must always be a virtual camera, with a virtual position, virtual rotation, and virtual field of view, and if you want also virtual lens simulation. Simulated cameras are not limited by physical movement of film, or physical limitations of processing power and memory speed. They are not trying to capture real light from real events either. So they are capable of acting like a "global shutter" because they have a complete picture every frame of the video.

If you mix all the other evidence we have together with the lack of camera distortion it proves the video is CGI.

For those who want more info regarding rolling shutter distortion, this is a good one:

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
I listed all the issues with finding global shutter video cameras. They are old. They are rare. Require film. The ones available now, modern or not, are very expensive and require large rolls of film.

Film cameras usually use a rotating shutter, and those are rolling shutters, but as film reacts in a slightly different way it's not as sensitive to that effect as digital sensors with rolling shutters.

They are almost never digital.

But they do exist, so it's possible that one was used.
But, having said that, I don't think they were using a 40,000 € camera.

It's also interesting that there are many global shutter cameras, but they are used in machine vision. I supposed their small sensor size makes them less interesting for a consumer market, but the prices around 300 € or 400 € show that it's possible to make global shutter sensors that are not very expensive.

Global shutters are made possible with film because the light can be saved onto the film instantly all at once through a chemical process. Doing this at a high enough rate to create a video is easy. However, most are limited to lower frame rates because the film needs to move quickly through the camera, and a physical shutter needs to open and close each frame.

No, it happens in a very similar way to a common CMOS sensor with an electronic rolling shutter, as a frame is exposed to the light coming in from the scene starting at the top of the frame, and the chemical process starts as soon as the light hits the film. As the shutter keeps moving over the frame the light affects the film progressively from top to bottom, exactly like a CMOS sensor being read, so if the camera is filming a scene with an object that is moving fast from left to right, the top of the image will show the object more to the left than the bottom of the image.
I don't know how fast those shutters are or how fast is the process of the film getting affected by the light, but I suppose all that could help make that rolling shutter effect not noticed. Besides that, they didn't want it to appear, so they would do all they could to avoid it, while today many people just don't care about it.

Global shutters become very difficult to create with digital cameras because every single pixel of the photodetector array needs to be read by a microprocessor and written to memory (this is a bottleneck).

That problem is common to all types of sensors, as the bigger the sensors the more data they have to work with.

Frame transfer CCDs are not affected as much as common CMOS sensors, as they transfer the whole image to a reading area that is read while the next image is being captured on the light sensitive area. The biggest disadvantage of this system is that it's twice as big, as it uses a light sensitive area and similar size area that is used only to be read and is usually covered to avoid interference from the light.

For example my smartphone has a 12 megapixel camera. That means its 4000 pixels wide and 3000 pixels tall for a total of 12,000,000 little tiny light sensors that need to write at least 3 bytes of RGB data each to memory which is 36,000,000 bytes. It needs to do this 30 times a second for 30 FPS video which would be 1,080,000,000‬ bytes per second or 1080 MB/s. That would require a very fast processor or multiple processors. It also requires very fast memory. To put things in perspective some of the fastest flash memory available is limited to 380 MB/s.

1080 MB/s is nothing for a processor, a computer processor can move data at 100 times that speed, so a processor like that could theoretically work with 40000 x 30000 pixels images. As for memory, comparing the speed needed with flash memory is not the best choice, as flash memory is a very slow type of memory, as you can see if you look at common DDR4 memory and its speed of 25600 MB/s. Cache memory used inside the processors work at the above mentioned speeds of around 150000 MB/s.

To make digital video possible with the processor and memory technology we have today they normally don't read all the pixel sensors at once into memory, they read row by row which reduces the amount of data passing through at any given time. They call that a rolling shutter, even though there is no real physical shutter.

They do that not because they need to reduce the amount of data passing through, they do it to reduce the amount of transistors used on the sensor, as its technically easy to make a global shutter CMOS sensor, but they are more expensive.

Captain Disillusion's evidence of the lack of rolling shutter distortion is not proof of a hoax by itself. It simply increases the probability of it being a hoax because it rules out the usage of the most common video cameras available, and points towards either a rare camera being used, or a virtual camera via software.

True.

In digital effects software there must always be a virtual camera, with a virtual position, virtual rotation, and virtual field of view, and if you want also virtual lens simulation. Simulated cameras are not limited by physical movement of film, or physical limitations of processing power and memory speed. They are not trying to capture real light from real events either. So they are capable of acting like a "global shutter" because they have a complete picture every frame of the video.

Obviously.

If you mix all the other evidence we have together with the lack of camera distortion it proves the video is CGI.

No, it makes it more likely to be CGI, it doesn't prove it.

PS: I don't know how it would work, but I think that a camera with a rolling shutter mounted sideways would not show the rolling shutter effect on the OP video, as the sudden movement is sideways. I tried it with my camera but it didn't show any rolling shutter effect in any way.

I made several tests with my camera (an oldish Samsung WB5000) and I couldn't create that rolling shutter effect on any video, even after disabling the anti-shaking option that I thought could be interfering with my tests.

Could it be that the rolling shutter effect is not as noticeable as that on everyday situations?

Can anyone else try it to see what happens? We could be basing our opinions on something that doesn't really happen in reality.

PS: as we are having cloud cover for the last couple of days I wasn't able to try it with a video of the Moon, that would be the best test. I will try it when possible.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Can anyone else try it to see what happens? We could be basing our opinions on something that doesn't really happen in reality.

It obviously happens in this test, but it's more obvious at lower frame rates:

Sony NEX-EA50 Rolling Shutter Skew Test at Different Frame Rates

60p does show less skew than 60i, 30p and 24p. This is NOT a scientific test. I tried to pan at the same speed for all frame rates. 60i did in fact surprise me. I figured it would be exactly like 30p, but its not. I didn't convert 24p to 30 for this test so it's motion does look messed up in this clip but you'll get the idea.

It's less than 1 minute long. I don't have to do anything to see the skew at the lower frame rates except watch the video, or look at the video preview.

It's still skewed at the highest frame rate 60p, but it's not as obvious.

Here are 3 tests I just made, can anyone spot any rolling shutter effect?







Did I did do anything wrong?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: StallionDuck

The fact is that it's easy for a faker to do a good job, even using only free tools.

There are 3D models of the Moon available, including height information (some have been posted on ATS) and there free 3D modelling tools. The rest is human work, and that's where things usually fail, as most hoaxers are not interested in investing a lot of time in their hoaxes. If they do then we cannot really know if it's true or not, as there's nor way of telling if something is true or fake if the fake was made with some care.

PS: many years ago I made a test here on ATS to see if people could identify which of two photos was faked. Some pointed to the right photo as being fake, but they pointed to areas that were not altered, so nobody was able to spot what was faked.

with distortion of our atmosphere and all the other things involved with it being filmed through a telescope does that not change what we would expect of PERCEIVED movement of the shadow and so forth?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: StallionDuck

The fact is that it's easy for a faker to do a good job, even using only free tools.

There are 3D models of the Moon available, including height information (some have been posted on ATS) and there free 3D modelling tools. The rest is human work, and that's where things usually fail, as most hoaxers are not interested in investing a lot of time in their hoaxes. If they do then we cannot really know if it's true or not, as there's nor way of telling if something is true or fake if the fake was made with some care.

PS: many years ago I made a test here on ATS to see if people could identify which of two photos was faked. Some pointed to the right photo as being fake, but they pointed to areas that were not altered, so nobody was able to spot what was faked.

with distortion of our atmosphere and all the other things involved with it being filmed through a telescope does that not change what we would expect of PERCEIVED movement of the shadow and so forth?

^Yes. Imo there is all different kinds of distortion and different factors that nobody really can account for exactly.

Even though a lot of debunker type posters are acting like they can know such things exactly. I don't believe anyone can. Hence I don't find the debunker arguments as compelling in this thread. Splitting hairs over such impossibly minute details, as the angle of the shadow etc.

I haven't checked recently but I certainly hope the YT channel will post more content of his typical telescope moon recordings... (to hopefully verify the different details seen in the UFO vid, like the arguments over the atmospheric distortion, etc.)

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
with distortion of our atmosphere and all the other things involved with it being filmed through a telescope does that not change what we would expect of PERCEIVED movement of the shadow and so forth?

The relative movement of the shadows over the Moon, no, as the distortions would apply to the shadows in the same way they would apply to the Moon on that place.

A distortion would not make the shadow move from being over crater A to it being over crater B.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Here are 3 tests I just made, can anyone spot any rolling shutter effect?

Thanks for doing the demos. I watched them and I was hoping More1ThanAny1 would reply since it was his comment/tangent you were pursuing. But since he didn't comment...I did watch them and didn't find any rolling shutter effect. I also did some research and found that that effect can vary a lot by the make/model of camera being used.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
with distortion of our atmosphere and all the other things involved with it being filmed through a telescope does that not change what we would expect of PERCEIVED movement of the shadow and so forth?

It's the motion of the atmosphere suddenly halting in a single frame, that proves it's a fake more than any other argument:

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
This evidence suggests the back plate is not even a video, it is a still photo of the Moon. Knowing this we can probably find more proofs.
...
Turbulence stops exactly at frame 855 in the video I've extracted from YouTube.

There are trillions and trillions of air molecules in motion in the atmosphere and they can't all suddenly stop creating a turbulent effect in a single frame like what you see there at frame 855. Newton's first law of motion says objects in motion tend to remain in motion etc, and the cause of turbulence is atmospheric molecules in motion, so if they all just stopped in one frame it would violate that fundamental law.

So, that's not real atmospheric turbulence, it's a GCI effect that they neglected to keep running until the end of the video due to sloppy fakery. This tutorial shows how an effect like can be added using After Effects" software:

Heat Wave Distortion Effect - After Effects Tutorial


This video also talks about the problem with the turbulence suddenly stopping, and other problems with the fake video, in case you haven't seen it yet. It was posted on a prior page in this thread.



a reply to: JamesChessman
The challenge is still open for you to find an impossible real video with turbulence stopping in a single frame, but you won't find one, so don't waste your time. Also did you watch the debunking video "Quick D: UFO on the Moon", where Phil Plait points out another huge problem at the 5 minute mark? I haven't heard you respond to Plait's point either which is huge.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The challenge is still open for you to find an impossible real video with turbulence stopping in a single frame, but you won't find one, so don't waste your time.

Lol, dude I haven't even glanced at the site in weeks, and the last thing that's on me is to find such a video. I don't have the time to pour into that right now. Nor the interest or inclination...

The person who SHOULD do that is the person who filmed the UFO video. Wasn't he described as someone who regularly films the moon with that set-up? That would mean he has hundreds / thousands of videos from his same set-up.

So he should post more vids from his same set-up, and show the same things, in his other recordings.

That's the most disappointing part of this case, in my opinion.

But it would be on him, to show that...

I also just checked the "original" YouTube video (that you guys argued was not posted by the "original" person): And unfortunately he never posted anything else.

If he really has all these tons of moon videos then he should really post some, and help verify his ufo vid.

Like if he suddenly posted 100 vids showing the same things, then it would be more compelling and less arguable, I think...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Since objects close to the moon moving at the speed seen would have velocities many times faster than lunar orbital velocities, as you say, that's the biggest problem I have with this video."

LMAO

Again, I thought you would be smarter than that, unless you are really trying to disinform

a reply to: play4keeps

and I think the video is CGI, btw.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Lol, dude I haven't even glanced at the site in weeks

More1ThanAny1 posted that video on June 3, so you have had a long time to watch it, which could have saved you a lot of time worrying about nonsense like this:

If he really has all these tons of moon videos then he should really post some, and help verify his ufo vid.

Like if he suddenly posted 100 vids showing the same things, then it would be more compelling and less arguable, I think...

It's not a UFO video, it's a still picture enhanced by CGI, so that's why you should have watched the video QuickD: UFO on the moon, it explains that, so you would know to stop worrying about what other videos the person who faked that video has, that's not even a real video.

a reply to: play4keeps
That was before I found the problem that someone else pointed out, about the turbulence suddenly stopping, which is a bigger problem. But I'd be curious if you think objects which appear to be in orbit should not be going at orbital velocity or what about what I said is disinformation? They are clearly going way faster than orbital velocity for the moon.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

To be honest, they could be applying a ridiculous amount of delta V to maintain a particular altitude at a ridiculously high velocity. Who know why aliens might do that?

But atmospheric distortion doesn't just stop. So, yeah. Fake. For that and other reasons.

a reply to: Phage
There was some discussion about that possibility back on pages 9-10, that it's not impossible but it wouldn't make sense if aliens were doing that. What would make sense is if the CGI artist didn't know how to accurately portray orbital velocity.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok so if I'm understanding you, and you think they're too fast to be in orbit, as you think they appear: Then why not just figure that they're actually flying from self-propulsion?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Even if aliens had more advanced propulsion, it would likely still take more energy to propel the craft than to just let it orbit at the normal orbital speed which doesn't require much if any fuel orbiting the moon. It's hard to think of a reason why the craft would need to waste that fuel if the UFOs were real, but if they are fake, it's pretty easy to think of why; the CGI artist knew more about CGI than about orbital mechanics and didn't make the orbital speed realistic.

So maybe it's not the most absolute proof if you want to assert that maybe the aliens don't mind wasting fuel when they could much more easily orbit the moon at natural orbital speed, but even in that case I wouldn't say it meets your statement of " It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me... ". I would say it doesn't look good at all, and is not convincing at all to expect that even aliens would waste fuel when it's completely unnecessary, and further it seems a lot more likely that it shows the CGI artist doesn't know orbital mechanics. Plus there are a lot of other clues that it's fake mentioned in this thread, but either you haven't read them or you refuse to accept them because you don't understand them. Like what about the say what appears to be an added heat distortion effect suddenly stops at 49 seconds? The turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere doesn't suddenly stop like that, it looks like an error in the CGI, and other errors have been mentioned too.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I guess I lost interest too early.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, you reposted old posts from... months ago. Yeah I still think it’s absurd for anyone to assume the orbital velocity of alien craft but hey, suit yourselves.

But regardless: the lack of other videos is my biggest problem with this case. The original guy is supposed to have hundreds/thousands of similar recordings, but he never posted any of it. Very disappointing...