AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THIS LOOKS LiKE COMPUTER GRAPHICS?

It could easily be a shot taken in Southern Iraq. It looks eerily like that terrain. And remember during the invasion those days the sky was red? I'm not saying it is. Just that it could be. Americans wouldn't frokken know the difference.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

I just saw the same pic on the NASA tv channel. Yes, it was taken by a digital camera, but it wasn't manipulated.

The lander is computer generated, but the landscape looks enhanced, not computer genetated.

As previously said I think it's get something to do with it being on an alien planet. Just a thought.

Personally, having seen examples of Zzub's experience in this area, I'd certainly consider him an expert in this area....and I agree wholeheartedly... It isn't a fake, but a digital pic...

I'd believe it if there wasn't a join line on the picture

Near the top, its like the grounds running into the horizon you have a faint darker shade of line running in an arc across the picture, then you have the mountain suddenly shoot up.

Thats what happens if you use a CSO in a room, you still have the edges to deal with.

Definitly genuine. If that was computer generated, it would have been done by the best CG artist out there, and he is not working for JPL. If someone saw this detail in a 10th grade class, that would be one amazing class.

The details in the shadows, the dirt, the lighting and the creases in the ballons go beyond what is being done now.

They just took it with liek a 7000 megapixel digital camera, so it is far beyond the quality we are used to seeing.

Yes, and this is a colage, or atleast that is what they want us to believe. Then why is the overlap only visible in the sky? Not in the detailed rocks or in the structure of the vessel. Go figure.....

They have just become too damn good at this.....

I'll help you on this: The reason why you don't see the overlap in the sand or in the vessel, is that the background is what we call backdrop or a scene with wings. Atleast that's what I believe.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by mikromarius]

Sorry, were we denying ignorance, or taking it out for a movie and a meal?

Originally posted by Zzub
Sorry, were we denying ignorance, or taking it out for a movie and a meal?

Again thank you. Absolutely spot on.

The reason it looks computer generated is because they use high quality materials. That lander isn't a simple kit they build in a few nights and weekends...

They use alumin(i)um and plastic alloys which they don't sell at your local hardware shop... just think about it...

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

Hmmm interesting point... is there any way you could you manipulate the picture to discover if it is computer generated?

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by BlackgraceGazia]

The reason it looks computer generated is because you're used to seeing a lot of amateur computer-generated 3D art on the Interent. 3D hobbists typically create their images with short camera focal points, causing a distorted image. The very small camera on the rover that took this shot also has a short default focal point, resulting in an image that has the same type of distortion as poorly-rendered amateur 3D images. (Nothing against 3D hobbists, they just tend to lack an awareness of the settings of their virtual camera.)

i'm with the 'out of context' crowd...the lander only appears fake.

but, i'm also in the camp ofthe 'Doctored/Manipulated Image'
~*~

?Q?... if it's -50 or -60, how could water/moisture be anyway responsible for the 'dust/dirt' on the inflateable air-bags??
*would not electrostatic attraction, mimic the mud theory?
*would not a tough fabric, canvas?, wrapping the outer layer of the air-bag cushions-> trap material,-> mimic mud theory?
*also...pics of the lander(as comparison), taken before the Mars landing were taken in optimum lighting, in a controlled enviroment, an ideal situation---for a record/journal/evidence and as a reference basis to be able to calibrate data sent from Mars...
WITH NECESSARY "MODIFICATIONS" added...unbeknownst to us, civilians !

enjoy the journey

(schizo. for life)

Go you! The dirt could always just get caught in the tough fabric. In fact... the airbags were created right here in town! Isn't that awsome? ^__^

i dont think its CG, im a CG artist myself and it looks very good, possible, but VERY HARD, it would take so long to create that there would be not benefit to creating these images in CG.

An intersting point about this photo, that i read about in another post is the fact that the nasa logo is red not blue, so the colours have definately been altered in this particular photo.

Originally posted by dreamrebel
Although I dont believe the landing is a hoax. I can agree the pic does smack of a tinge of CGI

maybe its part of one of their animations. they have to some pretty cool animations for this thing. and it does look kinda fake

My question:

Are they just lucky that there haven't been any sand storms there? Because there isn't a SINGLE SPECK of sand on the actual metal/hardware part of it, it's clean and smooth.. not a grain of dust..

But yeah, good explanation on the dust attraction to the airbags.

Originally posted by Nerdling
Looks like a very complex CSO (colour separation overlay) commonly known as "Green screening"

Yeah, Ive seen pics of those. They often use them in the movies. Take goldeneye for instance, where alec was hanging form the attena cradle, the whole backdrop was a green screen. Most of that particular set was made out of the stuff.

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by theshadowknows]