Triangle UFO over Amsterdam 10/28/2013 | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1278422 Netherlands 11/01/2013 09:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 40444776 Ireland 11/01/2013 04:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not sure what to think about this one. What say you? Real or CGI? I saw an actual triangle at close range in 2008. Flew right past my wife and I at treetop level. It looked to be an isosceles triangle though, while the one on the vid is equilateral. Quoting: kalashnikov Looks pretty good to me,and the guy sounded pretty supprised when it shot off? |
kalashnikov
(OP) User ID: 31627706 United States 11/01/2013 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not sure what to think about this one. What say you? Real or CGI? I saw an actual triangle at close range in 2008. Flew right past my wife and I at treetop level. It looked to be an isosceles triangle though, while the one on the vid is equilateral. Quoting: kalashnikov Looks pretty good to me,and the guy sounded pretty supprised when it shot off? I thought so too. I've seen the bright flash on nocturnal lights, though I've negver seen one shoot off like that. I've always suspected the lights were some related to their propulsion system. The triangle I saw had an extremely bright light on the trailing edge. It either didn't care about being seen, or the light had an essential function beyond illumination. |
Ger_reG
User ID: 49267553 Germany 11/01/2013 07:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45581443 United States 11/01/2013 07:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You mention CGI, so let me give you a good rule of thumb to work off of. If a shot involves a computer-generated element that must be added to real footage, and the camera is moving, that footage has to be motion tracked. This means using a program to place tracker "dots" on features of the scene that are solid and unmoving to approximate the camera motion and recreate it on the computer. For this reason, if all you can see is sky/clouds or water (elements that are constantly moving) in a shot, it is damn near impossible to motion track it, making CGI unlikely. Now, it could be 100% CGI, but recreating hand-held camera motion like that is not a simple task, nor something for beginners or basic hoaxers. So whatever it is, it's probably legitimate footage. |
kalashnikov
(OP) User ID: 31627706 United States 11/01/2013 07:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You mention CGI, so let me give you a good rule of thumb to work off of. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45581443 If a shot involves a computer-generated element that must be added to real footage, and the camera is moving, that footage has to be motion tracked. This means using a program to place tracker "dots" on features of the scene that are solid and unmoving to approximate the camera motion and recreate it on the computer. For this reason, if all you can see is sky/clouds or water (elements that are constantly moving) in a shot, it is damn near impossible to motion track it, making CGI unlikely. Now, it could be 100% CGI, but recreating hand-held camera motion like that is not a simple task, nor something for beginners or basic hoaxers. So whatever it is, it's probably legitimate footage. Very interesting! Thanks AC! |
okdk User ID: 40166867 United Kingdom 11/01/2013 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 39011376 Netherlands 11/01/2013 08:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6706547 United States 11/01/2013 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You mention CGI, so let me give you a good rule of thumb to work off of. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45581443 If a shot involves a computer-generated element that must be added to real footage, and the camera is moving, that footage has to be motion tracked. This means using a program to place tracker "dots" on features of the scene that are solid and unmoving to approximate the camera motion and recreate it on the computer. For this reason, if all you can see is sky/clouds or water (elements that are constantly moving) in a shot, it is damn near impossible to motion track it, making CGI unlikely. Now, it could be 100% CGI, but recreating hand-held camera motion like that is not a simple task, nor something for beginners or basic hoaxers. So whatever it is, it's probably legitimate footage. Your logic is sound, and you obviously know your cgi. My question to you is if it were 100% cgi, and considering the clarity isn't the greatest, could they be filming a good hd monitor at the right fps with a handheald camera? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12762865 Australia 11/01/2013 08:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not sure what to think about this one. What say you? Real or CGI? I saw an actual triangle at close range in 2008. Flew right past my wife and I at treetop level. It looked to be an isosceles triangle though, while the one on the vid is equilateral. Quoting: kalashnikov Looks pretty good to me,and the guy sounded pretty supprised when it shot off? I thought so too. I've seen the bright flash on nocturnal lights, though I've negver seen one shoot off like that. I've always suspected the lights were some related to their propulsion system. The triangle I saw had an extremely bright light on the trailing edge. It either didn't care about being seen, or the light had an essential function beyond illumination. i think those bright flashes are reflections of the sun though.. cool vid! |
The Zissou
User ID: 40693021 United States 11/02/2013 12:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You mention CGI, so let me give you a good rule of thumb to work off of. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45581443 If a shot involves a computer-generated element that must be added to real footage, and the camera is moving, that footage has to be motion tracked. This means using a program to place tracker "dots" on features of the scene that are solid and unmoving to approximate the camera motion and recreate it on the computer. For this reason, if all you can see is sky/clouds or water (elements that are constantly moving) in a shot, it is damn near impossible to motion track it, making CGI unlikely. Now, it could be 100% CGI, but recreating hand-held camera motion like that is not a simple task, nor something for beginners or basic hoaxers. So whatever it is, it's probably legitimate footage. Just so you know, this is fake. By "fake" I mean not a UFO. By "not a UFO" I mean CGI. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 39554676 Netherlands 11/10/2013 03:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |