Indonesia Sep 2011 Security Cam

What do you make of this? I don't even know what to call it to search the forums.

been on the forums before and it is well and truely classed as a hoax.

Id call this fake.. for blatantly obvious reasons, but namely how it was "recorded" last year and if it was true, why it didn't take of LAST YEAR... just sayin..

Debunked as either a hoax or a moth, I forget which one.

Well now, there's something you don't see everyday.

So why it is a hoax if it's suppose to be live feed from an installed camera? And the running towards it was faked as well? Looked like they were dragging it off at the end.

Just curious.

reply to post by Manhater


If you will read one of the original threads you will find it was very easily debunked beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Proof I spend way too much time on ATS...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I mean I have to admit that whatever that thing was, it looked like he bounced off a trampoline and exited stage left. From the way it looked.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


I think it's from September 2011

It's suppose to be a viral marketing campaign from a deodorant brand consisting of three videos posted in YouTube, telling a story of how an angel fell down from the sky in Citos -- one of Jakarta's famous hangout place. The story was spread fast through twitter and Indonesian forums, however since the acting was beyond par it was quickly raising doubts, and upon further investigation by the news media the Citos's PR quickly explained that it was a marketing campaign shot in their venue.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Proof I spend way too much time on ATS...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the links, and I've read most all the comments there (proof that I also spend too much time on ATS).

However, those threads are just disbeliever after disbeliever jumping on the bandwagon crying "hoax" — it's hardly debunking (as commented elsewhere here). I call that cynical sheeple behavior, and all the stars in the world can't improve it.

Originally posted by bayuamus
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

I think it's from September 2011

It's suppose to be a viral marketing campaign from a deodorant brand consisting of three videos posted in YouTube, telling a story of how an angel fell down from the sky in Citos -- one of Jakarta's famous hangout place. The story was spread fast through twitter and Indonesian forums, however since the acting was beyond par it was quickly raising doubts, and upon further investigation by the news media the Citos's PR quickly explained that it was a marketing campaign shot in their venue.

PR meaning press release? And how reliable is that? Surely any government would do whatever's necessary to control mass hysteria.

Here's my analysis. And I do, in fact, have some familiarity with radiosity effects in animations. Pros and cons as follows.

The convincing aspects:

The lighted surfaces especially on the lintel beam at the upper left is a big clue. It's not something generated by a uniform CGI light object. Same for areas on the right above and behind. It looks more like strobing and multi-directional light, which is near impossible to generate in software. It's also fairly consistent in its movements. Lighted surfaces and shadow movements are complex in an organic or fractal way, so hoaxing such detail would be extremely tedious and unnecessary. Perhaps possible with very advanced and powerful CGI, but why bother if so few viewers notice such detail?

Then having to create the mall imagery as background, like for an overlay splice as a hoax, requires quite a precise 3D modeling of the entire scene. I've personally done this for a smaller space, and the time it takes is absolutely annoying. This means getting everything — even the diameter, shape and curvature of those tree trunks. The upper trunk right behind the glowing object produces an appropriate shadow!

The timestamp is consistent and regular. Though it's hard to tell a 6 from a 9 etc., there's no obvious jump like from a splice.

The kids running over to look are very convincing. Sure it's night. It's dark. It's quiet. It's a mall open to the sky. Kids do carry flashlights. The one who hesitated halfway is revealing of their bewilderment. They find nothing on the ground. That's some amazing acting for such a short hoax.

But the questionable aspects:

Having no people in the scene during the flash is the only point in question. This opens the possibility of a spliced-in scene. But then again it seems extremely difficult to hoax.

All in all, it's just an anomaly. Definitely not debunked. And being "explained" by the local government is not proof. It's still entirely open to speculation.

Hiya,

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
It's not something generated by a uniform CGI light object. Same for areas on the right above and behind. It looks more like strobing and multi-directional light, which is near impossible to generate in software.

I would disagree with this assesment.

It's also fairly consistent in its movements. Lighted surfaces and shadow movements are complex in an organic or fractal way, so hoaxing such detail would be extremely tedious and unnecessary.

Or is just using creative maths or basic curves / keyframe interfaces. Don't even have to type the algorithm yourself, just manipulate it using curves, mattes, and textures. Using 2D planes in 3D space isn't that hard.

Perhaps possible with very advanced and powerful CGI

Is not that advanced. These days is fairly required if you want to hold down a job. Organic patterns is part of the job.

Then having to create the mall imagery as background, like for an overlay splice as a hoax, requires quite a precise 3D modeling of the entire scene. I've personally done this for a smaller space, and the time it takes is absolutely annoying. This means getting everything — even the diameter, shape and curvature of those tree trunks.

Most things can just be projected in 3D space even when making faux camera movements, and it doesn't have to be that precise; you can rip off the textures from the existing scene. Job am currently working on, I had to to model a structure over an existing static shot, project the pillars below the structure and turn it into a jib shot. You might interpret this as 'precise 3D modelling of an entire scene' but really it was generating a few textures here and there, and working out relative distances.

My motion tracking was done in boujou and was basically automated except the lens was set to infinity and some near objects are a pain.

I'm a junior person. No one important. I'm not key noting mysef, and you're welcome to get in touch if you want to see examples.

This is tutorial level stuff though, nothing that advanced. (No offense, it can seem advanced I guess depending what areas you work)

Originally posted by Pinke
Hiya,

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
It's not something generated by a uniform CGI light object. Same for areas on the right above and behind. It looks more like strobing and multi-directional light, which is near impossible to generate in software.

I would disagree with this assesment.

It's also fairly consistent in its movements. Lighted surfaces and shadow movements are complex in an organic or fractal way, so hoaxing such detail would be extremely tedious and unnecessary.

Or is just using creative maths or basic curves / keyframe interfaces. Don't even have to type the algorithm yourself, just manipulate it using curves, mattes, and textures. Using 2D planes in 3D space isn't that hard.

Perhaps possible with very advanced and powerful CGI

Is not that advanced. These days is fairly required if you want to hold down a job. Organic patterns is part of the job.

Then having to create the mall imagery as background, like for an overlay splice as a hoax, requires quite a precise 3D modeling of the entire scene. I've personally done this for a smaller space, and the time it takes is absolutely annoying. This means getting everything — even the diameter, shape and curvature of those tree trunks.

Most things can just be projected in 3D space even when making faux camera movements, and it doesn't have to be that precise; you can rip off the textures from the existing scene. Job am currently working on, I had to to model a structure over an existing static shot, project the pillars below the structure and turn it into a jib shot. You might interpret this as 'precise 3D modelling of an entire scene' but really it was generating a few textures here and there, and working out relative distances.

My motion tracking was done in boujou and was basically automated except the lens was set to infinity and some near objects are a pain.

I'm a junior person. No one important. I'm not key noting mysef, and you're welcome to get in touch if you want to see examples.

This is tutorial level stuff though, nothing that advanced. (No offense, it can seem advanced I guess depending what areas you work)

I remember watching this video a while ago.
I didn't know it had been debunked.

Could you actually produce something similar ?

reply to post by lambros56


Sure.

Can you pay me?