Fake Looking UFO Filmed From Airplane Window
- Thread starter taurusclover21
- Start date
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Any recreation needs to take into account the object going behind the wing, if a fake this indicates some level of compositing however it was performed.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yeah, the video playing behind the plexiglass needs to be produced somehow; but could be done physically with a cardboard wing and saucepan lid.
KilliK
Member
no, I am talking about the software which will be used to composite the scene. i dont think it's full practical, but a combination.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Video Vegas 7/8 was widely available on warez sites back in circa 2007
Mendel
Senior Member.
If Ravi's theory with the plexiglass pans out, I don't think you need any software to re-create this scene.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Then you posit a physical mode of a wing recreated for the video against a blue-sky backdrop, rather than a video of a wing from a 737 window? That does add more complexity to the artifice.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
Any recreation needs to take into account the object going behind the wing, if a fake this indicates some level of compositing however it was performed.
On Saturday afternoon I learned enough Blender to figure out how how to make this with some footage I found on YouTube
I'll work on the animation next to make it more like the original, then I'll render a longer clip. Degrading the quality by overcompressing the video will also help to fuzz things up and hide the CGI-ness.
When animating this I found another tell that the original is fake — the perspective on the saucer is all wrong. In order for us to see the top of the disc when it's at the bottom of the frame, and the underside when it's at the top, you need a much wider focal length than the ~70mm equivalent that we've established was used to record the wing tip (and the saucer would also need to be much closer than the end of the wing).
386
Member
It's so low quality it could be done a number of ways, is there any evidence that the wing and/or sky aren't static image(s)? Simple to cut out the wing on green/transparent in photoshop, add your 3D "saucer" that you rendered over the sky photo/background, layer the wing cutout back over top, play it back on a screen while using scratched plastic to diffuse the pixels and to add a "window look" while shaking about and "panning" for the movement, add some blur, compress to potato resolution and done. The result from that may have even been filmed a second time to add an additional layer of shake/noise/etc. I'm not saying for certain that's how they did it, but I first used PS and Premiere back in about 2005 and that software was more than capable of what I described.
I don't think it requires any advanced rotoscoping or tracking, although they could have done it frame by frame, all in 3D, or with physical models combinations, but that seems unnecessary since there's no apparent sky/wing movement.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
less complexity, because a) the wing can be a cardboard cut-out as the camera position does not change and b) compositing the lid with the wing cut-out "in hardware" is simpler than doing it in software.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I suspect that we are on the right track either way I am always surprised a bit when I see movie recreations behind the scenes, often simpler things are way more effective than we expect.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
I actually started out with a (slightly modified) Le Creuset lid at first — from a 3d stock model website.
But it's actually very easy to model a round object, you just have to draw half of its cross section in a join-the-dots fashion, and then use the "spin" operator to turn it into a solid.
I remembered this technique from all the way back in the Amiga days, so definitely something a novice could do in 2008.
The compositing step was surprisingly simple too. First I had to stabilize the video which was literally as simple as clicking on two or three points on the wing with high contrast and pressing "Ctrl+T".
Now you have to define a mask, which you can just do by drawing a 2D vector shape over the wing in its stabilized position.
Or you can mess around with the image contrast etc. to dynamically generate a mask directly from each video frame:
(this is a bit more involved as you also need to draw a "garbage mask" to cover up the extra cloud pixels — but this can just be a couple of large rough rectangles, no precision needed).
Either way, once you have the mask, you just tell the renderer not to generate pixels for this part of the screen.
Then you overlay the rendered image on top of the stabilized video, and I added some postprocessing blur and glare to glue everything together visually.
So I think this would actually require a lot less effort than rigging up cast iron pot lids, making a cardboard model wing etc. The scratched glass would be a lot easier to do practically though, because it would be very hard to generate accurate masks for fine detail like that.
All of these techniques would have been possible in Cinema 4D or Blender back in 2008, it would have just been a bit slower. For reference, these frames take about 4 seconds to render at 1080p on a five year old PC.
Attachments
Last edited:
KilliK
Member
here is a video someone made in 2008, the same day the FLYBY was uploaded. i read somewhere that it was a response to the FLYBY video, that he could make a better one with CGI very fast (he doesnt). i am posting it here for comparison.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZzuoJvnis
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZzuoJvnis
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I remembered this technique from all the way back in the Amiga days, so definitely something a novice could do in 2008.
I'll see your Amiga, and raise you a ZX Spectrum from 1982: https://worldofspectrum.org/software?id=0008953 , specifically, that wine glass:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Exactly, this is my point. Its so easy to make a huge variety of disc etc shaped objects in Blender etc, why make one that looks exactly like a pot lid with the black handle and blue colour and everything. This is what makes me think it's a practical effect with an actual pot lid, but it's just a thought.I actually started out with a (slightly modified) Le Creuset lid at first — from a 3d stock model website.
But it's actually very easy to model a round object, you just have to draw half of its cross section in a join-the-dots fashion, and then use the "spin" operator to turn it into a solid.
I remembered this technique from all the way back in the Amiga days, so definitely something a novice could do in 2008.
The compositing step was surprisingly simple too. First I had to stabilize the video which was literally as simple as clicking on two or three points on the wing with high contrast and pressing "Ctrl+T".
Now you have to define a mask, which you can just do by drawing a 2D vector shape over the wing in its stabilized position.
Or you can mess around with the image contrast etc. to dynamically generate a mask directly from each video frame:
(this is a bit more involved as you also need to draw a "garbage mask" to cover up the extra cloud pixels — but this can just be a couple of large rough rectangles, no precision needed).
Either way, once you have the mask, you just tell the renderer not to generate pixels for this part of the screen.
Then you overlay the rendered image on top of the stabilized video, and I added some postprocessing blur and glare to glue everything together visually.
So I think this would actually require a lot less effort than rigging up cast iron pot lids, making a cardboard model wing etc. The scratched glass would be a lot easier to do practically though, because it would be very hard to generate accurate masks for fine detail like that.
All of these techniques would have been possible in Cinema 4D or Blender back in 2008, it would have just been a bit slower. For reference, these frames take about 4 seconds to render at 1080p on a five year old PC.
386
Member
If you look at some of the other videos on that channel at the time, it is reminiscent of somebody playing around learning visual effects. Perhaps the 3D software simply came packaged with (or downloaded somebody's) demo models of a teapot or something else with a removable lid, and they thought it looked like a flying saucer and it gave them the idea to simply fly it about? or maybe it's just coincidence that their design looks that way. It moves incredibly smoothly for the alternative of it being a physical object manipulated by hand.
Last edited:
Max Phalange
Senior Member
The animation to emulate the movement in the flyby video is extremely simple, these are the X and Y location curves I ended up with:
Just three keyframes with curves interpolating the points (I did also tweak the saucer's tilt with another, even simpler, curve).
I think the reason that the "flyby" video doesn't scream CGI is because it's so simple — an experienced 3D animator might have flexed their skills and made a more complex UFO with lights or engines, they might have animated it suddenly accelerating off screen at the end, or at least doing something more interesting. But it almost looks too boring for someone to have bothered making it — filming it through the scratched up plastic is the touch that brings it to life.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Indeed the trajectory is very smooth for something that would be quite heavy dangling from a string etc.The animation to emulate the movement in the flyby video is extremely simple, these are the X and Y location curves I ended up with:
Just three keyframes with curves interpolating the points (I did also tweak the saucer's tilt with another, even simpler, curve).
I think the reason that the "flyby" video doesn't scream CGI is because it's so simple — an experienced 3D animator might have flexed their skills and made a more complex UFO with lights or engines, they might have animated it suddenly accelerating off screen at the end, or at least doing something more interesting. But it almost looks too boring for someone to have bothered making it — filming it through the scratched up plastic is the touch that brings it to life.
Ravi
Senior Member.
What angles did you use for the saucer's tilt? I am thinking that the animator (from the original fly-by vid) made a perspective mistake.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
The "Laziness Factor" should never be overlooked. The caveat there is that the laziest way to do something will vary with available resources and skills. If you dont have a handy teapot lid, but do have something like Blender and have or are acquiring the skills to use it, you are in a different position, laziness-wise, than if you don't have Blender but do have a well-stocked kitchen and a taste for tea.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
Here's my lunchtime attempt at filming the 3D animation off screen, compressed down to appropriately poor quality. The scratches on the plastic wouldn't stay in focus unfortunately, as my phone kept wanting to auto-focus on the screen. But I think it reconstructs the main elements of the original fairly faithfully.
About 20 degrees toward the camera and 10 away. I mentioned what I think you're alluding to up-thread somewhere — to get the perspective of looking down on the saucer at the bottom of frame, and looking up from below when it's at the top of frame, either it has to tilt back and forwards at the correct times, or it was rendered with a much wider angle lens than the physical plane footage was shot with (or the object was placed much closer to the virtual camera than the distance to the wing tip).
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
A tiny request - can you clearly watermark stuff like that, so that it can't be picked up by a malfeasant and used to fool others, or waste their (or our) time?
(By which you may interpret that, yes, I think it's good enough to be picked up by the kinds of people who picked up on the original.)
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
The focus thing is interesting to me, if the scratches are in focus what does the gap between screen and plastic need to be.. DoF of the camera as well..
Max Phalange
Senior Member
Yes it depends on a bunch of stuff - how big's the screen he filmed it off, how bright was it, how fast is the lens, how big is the sensor etc. A phone camera probably isn't the best choice to replicate it. When the scratches were in focus, the scene was definitely slightly out of focus, but I don't know if you could tell once it's been down-rezzed and overcompressed. I'd say my "window" was about 9 inches from the 13" laptop screen, and I used an iPhone 12 on 2x optical zoom. A DSLR might be a better match for the original camcorder's optics.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Send me your original video I have a variety of cameras including an older sony camcorder, not sure I have the scratched up plexiglass though
It's just odd because it looks like the camera is close because of the size of the ring, but the closer you focus the narrower your dof is
Last edited:
Ravi
Senior Member.
Agreed, and this is what is a very large indicator (for CGI). I don't even think this tilting is possible in reality, as the disc will then 'shoot up or down' when tilting (due to the wind/speed), which we don't see. Ok, I forgot ufos can ignore wind :-D
Max Phalange
Senior Member
The original "flyby" video isn't exactly what you'd call sharp though, aside from the reflections.
I can also re-render this one without the artificial blur added at the end, if you want to see how much detail you can resolve in both planes.
edit: added the non-blurred version.
Last edited:
386
Member
Just use an old CD case... wait... I am old...
Max Phalange
Senior Member
I've edited my post.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
I came across this interview with director Gareth Edwards, discussing the making of his film "Monsters". A good example of the effects a single person could do using off-the shelf-software around the period that the "flyby" video dates from.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z52OHXfLbSU
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z52OHXfLbSU
I used some plastic packaging, I think it was from food, like a cheese selection or something.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
Here's a brier explainer video that summarizes some of the arguments for this being a CGI hoax.
The section beginning at 0:25 shows how the view of the plane's wingtip had to have been filmed with a camera pointing rearward from the wing root.
From 1:09 there's an examination of the position of the camera's reflection, and how this contradicts the camera angle used to film the wing.
The hoax video is then reproduced using CGI and the technique of re-filming through a fake window, from ~2:12.
Finally, it demonstrates that the original uploader had the skills and tools necessary to pull this off in 2008.
The section beginning at 0:25 shows how the view of the plane's wingtip had to have been filmed with a camera pointing rearward from the wing root.
From 1:09 there's an examination of the position of the camera's reflection, and how this contradicts the camera angle used to film the wing.
The hoax video is then reproduced using CGI and the technique of re-filming through a fake window, from ~2:12.
Finally, it demonstrates that the original uploader had the skills and tools necessary to pull this off in 2008.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
In this case I'm guessing it was the "Humor Factor" even more so than laziness.
Similar threads
