The Endless "It's CGI!", "No, it's Not!" Debate

the secret web, thats exactly what I meant. That is what I personally do with all material that I come across. I check the basics first, before I waste my time on it. Unfortunately, the recent UFO images and videos haven't passed the basic tests, so I found myself on the CGI side of the debate. What bugs me the most, is that people automatically think I don't believe in UFO's because of it.

I am actually the exact opposite. I find myself being a more dedicated UFO enthusiast on ATS then most people. So dedicated that I would stick to my CGI judgement skills and take the mockery. I would rather rat out a hoax, then to be blind and ignore it.

IMO there are allot of lonely but talented people out there with too much time on there hands.

I am no expert but i do dismiss allot of videos/pictures as CGI. The drones for example my first thoughts were fake! Its just too far fetched and out of character compared with more classical sightings which do have more credibility.

Photoshop and other tools have become so familiar and user friendly that nowadays anyone who wants to can reproduce some of the stuff that has been going around.

Many people even stated that it is impossible to create these pictures! Well why don't you go and watch Transformers or War Of The Worlds believe me thats not real and it looks way better than the silly drone pics etc.

There is allot of good evidence out there, but no proof. I'll stay open minded though.

The way I'd illustrate the whole 'its not possible to do in CGI' debate is this way:

Everyone has seen 'special FX' heavy movies right? You may be suprised to find that many things you think are acxtualy 'real footage' in films are infact CGI. Things such as 3d background extensions, enviroments, digita doubles, props etc.... things that most people outside the industry only ever notice if they see it on the special features of a DVD.

Most people here at ATS and online have a basic working knowledge in some way shape or form of photoshop.... go back a few years and people with that knowledge were much rarer. With the 3d industry growing at an exponetial rate each year, and jobs and breaks being much more scarce than they used to be, your going to see more and more young 3d guys trying to use fake footage as a 'way in'.

Eventualy a lot more people will have knowlede in this area..although conrospondingly the quality of the fakes will go up along with the skill levels and the capabilities of software.

Wayne...

Originally posted by 11 11
..oach with a checklist of things to check, before we can even start to debate the reality of video or image itself..

1: EXIF data
..
[edit on 14-8-2007 by 11 11]

Exif? You can just copy and paste that right in. Guess it might be a starting point anyhow.
The way things are today, I'd start with someone actually taking credits for photo a or video, today people seems to discuss videos and photos that no "real person" takes credit for (me too thought to some extent, some videos are just too damn cool

Like the whole chad drone ordeal. Some mysterious person takes pictures of mysterious craft and figures (with an appearant genuine concern of his well being none the less) that nevermind the newspaper, let's go straight to C2C because he just knows those guys are the bomb for analyzing images and will surley figure out what it is (doh).

I still can't swallow that people are actually "deciphering" the "language" on that piece of polygons.

Whatever happened to multiple witnesses, multiple angles, checking air traffic on the location, etc. But ah, burden of proof and all that..boring stuff..

[edit on 16-8-2007 by lasse]

Originally posted by lasse
Exif? You can just copy and paste that right in. Guess it might be a starting point anyhow.

The point is, some people don't know how to edit EXIF data, some people don't bother to edit EXIF data (RajMan1977), and some people edit their EXIF data wrong, and some people just use a different image format that doesn't use EXIF. All in all, EXIF data, fake or not, holds clues to the answers.

For instance, the Time at which a picture was taken. You can fake that all you want in EXIF, but if you put a fake Time, it may be possible to prove the time wrong with the image itself, and debunk the image. Or if the Time is real, yet something else in the EXIF doesn't match with the actual image like the shutter speed, you can use that to your advantage. Or, If you see noticeable CG effects, yet the EXIF is perfect, you know they used an EXIF editor...

I can go on forever... but if you think EXIF holds no clues, then YOU hold no clue.

Originally posted by 11 11
Or, If you see noticeable CG effects, yet the EXIF is perfect, you know they used an EXIF editor...
I can go on forever... but if you think EXIF holds no clues, then YOU hold no clue.

Zzz. Got panties in a knot much?
If I see noticeable CG effects, that's enough for me. But whatever stirs your drink dude.

I hate to say this, but everything that you are seeing on that screen in front of you is CGI. No matter what quality the image was before being touched by the computer, it is now CGI.
Yes, there is alot of data that can be discovered by reading the coding that is behind the image. Yes, there are a large number of fakes out there. And Yes, it is sometimes difficult to glean the wheat from the chaff.
But that is the interesting part about researching such things. Imagine if David Suzuki did a 3 hr special and showed the world excellent close up footage of all the alien craft types, with model specific data and interveiws with the alien pilots. All this documented and verified by 100 of the worlds leading scientists, and spoon fed to the waiting world.
After we all ran out and got the DVD, what would we do? There are no more questions to debate. We'd all have to go chase Sasquatch until David got the camera out for him.
My point here is that while we should question the veracity of proofs offered, we shouldn't quible over minutia or personality. If you think a picture is fake, state why and explain it. Then be secure enough in your own manhood/womanhood to except that others will disagree with you.
I'd like to know why something is fake, and how it was done. But please don't litter up the boards with technogeek and insults. Most of us are having a hard enough time understanding the time dilation effect in relation to the old verses new Dr. Who shows.