California (Very Clear) UFO

[chattanova]

Is this something that fall into "The image is so good it must be fake" category?

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light

:confused:

[eternal_spirit]

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Craft050607a.jpglol or is it a frying pan with a few twigs attached.

[chattanova]

:) It looks like something taken out from a final fantasy game or something.

here are more on it,:http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1253&category=Environment

[eternal_spirit]

http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/D/DroneMQ-1Predator.jpgMQ-1 Predator, Nellis AFB, Nevada - Armed with an AGM-114
Hellfire missile on a training mission. Photo courtesy USAF.
http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/D/DronePredatorIraq.jpgPredator, Operation Iraqi Freedom - A high-altitude aerial reconnaissance
plane used for surveillance for ground forces. Photo by Staff Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock, USAF.

[chattanova]

Somebody have any idea what kinda language this is?

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7579/ufo002fw0.jpg

[eternal_spirit]

:) It looks like something taken out from a final fantasy game or something.

here are more on it,:http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1253&category=Environmenthttp://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/D/Drone2006AlabamaHeadline.jpg
This one looks like it's attached to the telegraph wires an balabcing on them.

[chattanova]

I know..:)

But check out these too, seems like it's been photographed everywhere
What the hell is this stuff!!?

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1252&category=Environment

[tinmenace]

I'd be very interested to know how it's flying. That hollow center like that reminds me A LOT of the "UFO" from the 1984 Olympics Closing Ceremony. I posted something about it HERE (Including footage) (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1295)

[chattanova]

I'd be very interested to know how it's flying. That hollow center like that reminds me A LOT of the "UFO" from the 1984 Olympics Closing Ceremony. I posted something about it HERE (Including footage) (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1295)

You're absolutly right, here are similarities.
Maybe this one is built on the 'olympic1984' platform..

[earthseed]

If this a drone it's there to scare people if it is fake photoshop it is also to scare people. It just has a Project Greenstar vibe to it.

[andreadoria]

well to make this tricks you don't need only of Photoshop to make it. I do know a bit well of 3D softwares and photography, that you can drop all the object you wants on a picture and make it look real. This process is called Camera Mapping. I did a lot of pictures that looks very real. You just need TIME! :) The guy that did this have forgot to fix some details that are important.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Craft050607e.jpg

If you look at this picture, you can see the flowers that are blurring, because of the small movement of the camera, but the object is more clear. It doesn't blur like the flowers... well in photography this is impossible and the details are more higher than the flowers. mmmmmh... nope it doesn't convince me.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Craft050607b.jpg

This picture speak by itself. I'm pretty much sure to say that it's a 3D model made, maybe with Maya 8 or Cinema 4D. I think the guys from Coast to Coast should study this pictures better before posting. It create confusion.

[chattanova]

thanx for the information:)

[lookfar]

Thanks for clarifying andreadoria :)

I was looking at this today with my son, who was quite interested in it (he's 5). We then got led from the Coast 2 Coast site onto the Nasa Astronomy Picture of the Day site & he's totally engrossed in those pics, hehe!!:D

[chattanova]

Thanks for clarifying andreadoria :)

I was looking at this today with my son, who was quite interested in it (he's 5). We then got led from the Coast 2 Coast site onto the Nasa Astronomy Picture of the Day site & he's totally engrossed in those pics, hehe!!:D

Great to hear:):)

[andreadoria]

well, for someone that have the knowledge, it's very easy to fake ufo pictures, because now exists a lot of plug-ins, that can simulate also the shadows of the fake objects, reflecting on the real objects in the picture. Actually it's very easy to get confused. I want to clarify that i do believe in ufos, and i know they are real, but fake pictures are always behind the corner, especially in the net. :)

[graflok]

If you look at this picture, you can see the flowers that are blurring, because of the small movement of the camera, but the object is more clear. It doesn't blur like the flowers... well in photography this is impossible and the details are more higher than the flowers.


Sorry but you are mistaken on that point. The softness is due to focus,
not motion. A lens is focused at a certain distance. Objects closer
or farther away may well be out of focus (soft) depending on the aperture
(f/stop) in use and the focusing distance set on the lens.

It's not at all unusual for a more distant object to be in focus while closer
objects appear soft or vice versa.

Note this photo which shows the leaf close to the lens is soft while the
hanging drops are sharp:
http://gnuhaus.com/iblog/depth_of_field_big.jpg

The softness in the above picture is not caused by motion. It's purely
a matter of "depth of field" which is a factor of focus.

Motion can cause an object to display a linear streaking or multi-image effect if a slow shutter speed is used, like this:
http://www.photographyjam.com/images/15.jpg

but it's very unlikely that a slow shutter speed would be used on a bright
sunny day as shown n the UFO picture and the softness of the foliage in
that picture is not the type produced by motion. It's just a general
softness as produced by focus factors.

[andreadoria]

Graflock, i'm talking about an object that is in movement. This "flying saucer" is moving, but it's more detailed than the flowers that aren't moving. To do that you need to have a Reflex camera and setup the time of the shutter not very quick. Usually to shot a picture like that, somebody would leave the camera in the AUTO function, to let the camera fix all the best parameters for the picture.

http://gnuhaus.com/iblog/depth_of_field_big.jpg

This picture is not properly the right example, because it's taken without movement. The Reflex camera stands on a trypod, and the field of view is focused only in the leaf in the middle. Without a trypod it's very hard to take this kind of pictures so cleany.

http://www.photographyjam.com/images/15.jpg

This one is made simply taking more time of exposure leaving the shutter open, it's not blurring because of the camera movement, but is the subject that is "blurring", because this dj is moving! :) Same stuff here. The camera is standing on something to rest.

In my examples, i just wanted to let you notice how somebody, without a trypod, can take shots of blurring flowers, because of the small movements of the hands. This "flying saucer" is supposed to move, and not to rest there without any movement.

Of course, i'm not saying that this picture are fake because of the reasons i'm exposing, i'm really open to somebody that let me understand that i'm wrong. I just want to say that this pictures doesn't convince me because it's very very very easy to simulate ufos on pictures with Maya or Cinema 4D... it's a child game. I will post some of mine, just to let you see an example because why i think this one are fake. :)

[andreadoria]

Here just a quick example of what you can do with those softwares.

http://www.ovniart.com/demo_ufo/demo.jpg

here is another different filter:

http://www.ovniart.com/demo_ufo/demo1.jpg

and here the last example...

http://www.ovniart.com/demo_ufo/demo2.jpg


here is the render:

http://www.ovniart.com/demo_ufo/demo_render.jpg

Now i'm not saying that this is the example to compare the pictures posted in this thread. I just say that, if i post this picture somewhere, somebody would think it's fake, but somebody would not. I did the spacecraft purposely to make it look more fake, but i did some more ufo like pictures that are more credible. I'm not here to debunk UFO phenomena, i believe in UFOs... but we should be more careful when we say "it's real! it's real!"... there's a lot of people out there that are more better than me in the 3D art... The secret is to work hours, or even days, on a single frame, adjusting filters, colors and contrasts to make it look credible. The object we discuss in this thread, obviously is more rich of details because it's made with a bigger resolution than i did, but if you work days on an object like this, you can do it... without any doubt...

[graflok]

The point is simply that there is nothing unusual about objects closer to the camera being softer than objects farther away.

It's a "Photography 101" concept -- one of the first things students learn.

[andreadoria]

oh sure! you have right... but if your eyes are expert, you can really understand when something is genuine or not, because if something is really there, it's affected also by the environment... in these pictures, this particular object, have a really strange environment interaction. Maybe i'm wrong, but my spirit of observation tells me that the object is fake.

[graflok]

It could be a faked image -- I'm not saying it's not fake.

The suspicious thing about it, to me, is that the underside of the object is too well lit.
Normally when photographing an object against a bright sky, the side closest to the
camera will be quite dark and details there will be obscured.

This object looks like it's being lit from below which doesn't make sense (unless it's glowing with its own light).

[andreadoria]

on this topic, i agree with you...

[andreadoria]

k... found... fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRv3WAEnHMc