Do you think that CGI technology has damaged UFO credibility?

I want to ask what your thoughts are on how CGI technology has affected our opinions when we see new UFO footage.

Because of computer technology advancing so much and allowing us to put anything onto film its pretty fair to say now that it is going to take something EPIC for us and everyone to believe that future UFO footage is infact the real deal. Also I feel it would prob have to be caught on tape by someone like CNN or SKY.

In conclusion i think CGI is a brilliant thing for certain things, but in this particular avenue i feel it has heavily damaged all UFO credibility

yeah so has chinese lantern technology..

reply to post by daxman


CGI is a good technology. But the pranksters are testing the patience of ufologists with these fake prank videos. And when you do a you tube video search regarding this, you will see most are fake videos, and this has spoiled the field. If the pranksters change their attitude, then this field will retain its status.

Definately!

I'm a CGI artist, and I could knock out a pretty realistic video in a couple of hours that would have a few people scratching their heads. However, that also means I know what to look out for.

Thing is, people are starting to figure out that the most realistic looking UFO videos, are the ones with a blurred shape, rather than an actual craft.

Usually, the only thing I have to go on, is how the UFO reacts to the background... meaning whether it moves correctly with the camera. But speaking of that, that's getting easier to fake, with camera track technology.

To be honest, if there wasn't a rule against it on ATS, I probs would have made a fake to see how many people would fall for it. After all, I have all the necessary technology.

Yeah !!!! maybe chinese bl**dy lanterns should have been mentioned in my OP, what are pain in the rear they are turning out to be!!

Well 4demon, its nice to know that there are people on here who know what to look for in CGI vids, i guess we need resident pro's to help us seperate the crap from potentialy real vids...........

reply to post by daxman


I don't think CGI has damaged UFO credibility because a lot of what can be achieved with CGI can also be achieved with trick photography, and trick photography has been about for over 100 years. Sometimes CGI dates more than traditional special effects because computing power changes so much more quickly than traditional film technology. It's a Jim Henson Company vs. Industrial Light & Magic argument, and highly subjective (Hoggle vs. Ja-Ja-Binks - Fight!), but it's relevant.

I think the single biggest things to harm UFO report credibility are people who are prepared to put personal belief before hard evidence and, sadly, the internet. The cases where there is tangible evidence are greatly harmed by those with little. The sceptic vs. believer argument is a key example of this with accusations of 'debunker' often unfairly aimed at people who are interested in truth based on evidence rather than conjecture.

The other big problem is the profit motive. There is money to be made in promoting bad evidence to believers, and there are conmen & crackpots.

Sites like this - where you've got people arguing fairly civilly - are streets ahead of sites that consist of absolute unflinching believers patting each-other on the back.

I think there's always been questions of authenticity long ago before CGI. My thoughts are that many credible ones may have been swapped with fakes at some point. The doubt is usually there anyway. Even if I went on a tour of some alleged craft, I still may doubt what I had witnessed myself. I think a tour of the craft and it's abilites would be in order.

Pictures and videos are interesting to a point, but when you're used to seeing these already, it gets boring......to me anyway. Is it real, or is it faked or a good fake etc. whatever, it's just not enough anyway. I want to look under the hood.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by aleon1018]

I think it has.

It's funny how we are getting better looking and longer shots of possible Alien UFOs which parallels the advancement of computer graphics now are they tied together? YES but also consider that millions of people have the means to record real events with better equipment with cell phone cameras instead of old grainy black and white photos.

So now I think it’s becoming harder to distinguish between the two and everybody and their brother now has a myspace and posts Youtube videos all claiming sightings/abductions/crashes and of course probing. All of his ruins in my opinion the real scientific efforts that should be used to study the phenomena.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I think it has.

It's funny how we are getting better looking and longer shots of possible Alien UFOs which parallels the advancement of computer graphics now are they tied together? YES but also consider that millions of people have the means to record real events with better equipment with cell phone cameras instead of old grainy black and white photos.

So now I think it’s becoming harder to distinguish between the two and everybody and their brother now has a myspace and posts Youtube videos all claiming sightings/abductions/crashes and of course probing. All of his ruins in my opinion the real scientific efforts that should be used to study the phenomena.

I mostly agree with you. But I'd like to clarify some technical details.

Film, post 1940, is often of a higher resolution than today's image sensors on camera phones and digital cameras. Even 35mm, but especially medium and large format cameras.

Film vs. digital is a highly charged debate, but there's a good run down over at Wikipedia (I agree that - "Which is better, film or digital?" is meaningless without the qualifier "...for what purpose?"):

en.wikipedia.org...

The reason many UFO photos, prior to digital cameras, were grainy could be several reasons. It could be the film is 'fast' and thus has greater perceived grain - or that the images have been copied, badly, one or more times. Meaning any kind of detailed photo analysis is out of the question.

One extremely interesting point you make is that the number of cameras available now appears to have lead to an increase in UFO photographs.

I just wish people would learn their cameras . If people read their camera manuals would be better shots in many cases and thus easier to analyse. I wouldn't try to catch fish without working out how a rod works ..

Personally I don't believe ANY video or photo I've seen is of an extra-terrestrial alien craft.

That changes when I see one with my own eyes.

The skeptics still need their solid evidence to back images up through disection and analysis. The believers work the other way round...that's why CGI ufos has become popular. Blame hollywood, computers and creative talent.

I still watch the skies though but take nothing for granted, especially from the internet.

reply to post by jackphotohobby


Good point.
What I meant by grainy old black and white photos. Of the realy good looking older photos we do not have the negatives most of the time. However with digital photos we can with the aid of computers do a real quick analysis and see if it's a fraud rather quickly.

I understand the quality difference my son is a Naval photographer and I learned a lot from him o I understand what you mean and I agree.

reply to post by daxman


CGI by itself wouldn't damage the credibility of the subject matter, but of course its wrong use does, and idiots do (i mean all those who download files from somewhere then upload them out of their original contest). The biggest problem, in my humble opinion, is that CGI ufos are considered, within CGI communities, a very reliable parameter of evaluation of skills. A good CGI video requires all the most important basics:
reliability of the 3d appearance of the object, reliability of its movements, well applied camera tracking, credible acceleration ratio, well applied enlightening, shadows, proportions, even the sound has to be credible. Since After effects, up to couples like Maya & Vue, some very talented artist is able to create some almost perfect illusion. Now the point is to declare it as CGI. People like Kris Avery

Google Video Link

say clearly that their creations are CGI, David Nicolas did NOT, and we have been hit by the UFO Haiti effect, which damaged the reliability of the phenomenon in a straight (and painful) way.
Paradoxically enough, Kris Avery's creations are at the same level, if not higher, than David Nicolas' one ( i personally think that he is one of the best CGI artists worldwide): but only people seriously introduced in the field know him, while everyone now knows David Nicolas. I'd have to add that to put some subtitles saying "this is CGI" would remove the magic of the illusion from the video, philipe Kling David, the author of this video,
, explained the why HERE. So the real problem are not CGI artists, but the idiots with much time to waste who upload these works giving to them another meaning: so a possible masterpiece is reduced to some hoax attempt: THIS is what we have to defend ourselves from. The problem are not the artists, but liars and attention seekers. All we can do is to improve our skills in recognizing the CGI fingerprints, even if now we really reached a point in which reality and CGI are very close each other A shiny example of serious analysis can be found here: while it's not conclusive, it shows the most important techniques needed to analyze a video, an optical physicist is the ideal type of expert needed in order to evaluate this type of videos. They are the best, "old school" ones, who had to study not just how imageering works, but also how a film can be developed, what tricks can be done with the old analog imageering, double exposures etc.. Another way to hoax is to outline some random image of the Moon or Mars, resize, resample it, reduce its color depht, then claim that there's some artificial structure there This is a relatively new trend, but not less dangerous than a deliberate hoax: do you think that there's an artificial structure on the Moon? Well, show me the original image then, don't add crap just because you want to make it look more interesting. Good OP mate


[edit on 2/2/2009 by internos]

I think its forums like this that damage UFO credibility. Before Abovetopsecret, I just read "mystery" books and swallowed everything. Then one come here and every other thread got [HOAX] in them. Or internos killed the thread

[edit on 2-2-2009 by merka]

It's certainly damaged the credibility of new photos and vids.
Without witness testimony to back up the footage, you can pretty much toss modern recordings.

However, it hasn't done anything to the credibility of images BEFORE such technology, and there is plenty of evidence on that front...

Personally I believe more people believe in Aliens / UFO's more than ever. With the help of the media and a few other things. But those chinese lanterns and CGI make looking at videos and pictures harder than ever.

Nope, we all know a photo or video is pretty meaningless without the back story, even better multiple independent witness's. Videos that dont show the UFo appearing/dissapearing highly suspect.
If the video is backed up by many witness's, other angles of the same event & other data its a useful tool but alone isn't really enough.

Absolutely. There will be a point I'm sure, where we will be inundated with high quality hoax material, in the near future. It's really a pity. It makes any possibility at disclosure dim.

That's why imo, that older cases should not be ignored, but thoroughly studied and analyzed.

There will be more cases such as Stephenville & the Phoenix lights which defy completely conventional theories & debunking, and over time continue to stand on the witness testimony & other data points (radar, photographic ect) which add up to compelling cases for UFO visitation. Dont worry about it

Originally posted by fleabit
Absolutely. There will be a point I'm sure, where we will be inundated with high quality hoax material, in the near future. It's really a pity. It makes any possibility at disclosure dim.

That's why imo, that older cases should not be ignored, but thoroughly studied and analyzed.

Well i have to say im thrilled with all these replies. I think when this thred starts to slow down ill add up who says yes and who says no and get a straight score. Not relevant you say? maybe not but it will be cool to know the majority opinion.

My thoughts are that it def has caused some damage, and although some people dispute this. the general vibe i get when reading the "no" posts are that these people have a better knowledge of CGi than me, which for me means im more easily fooled than they are lol

The Phoenix Lights Case is an excellent example...not of a UFO event (as the filmed 10pm event is accepted by most (me included) as a flare drop), per se, but of how the modern CGI stigma could be overcome...

This case showed how multiple videos of the same event, with many witnesses, and from different vantage points, can be useful in recording a sighting and having it go from story to FACT. As more and more people have quality video even right on their phones, the chances of multiple filmings of a UFO event drastically increases, and this can only be a good thing for capturing more sightings (and ruling out misidentifications).

Unfortunately for UFOlogists, the filmed 10pm Phoenix event was shown rather conclusively to be flares. (now before anyone gets too huffy, the 8pm event remains unexplained, but unfortunately has little video evidence to support (and that scant amount has no references to rule out the A-10s), only witness reports)...