UFO Hard turning high speed craft

[ArMaP]

At least for my self it does not matter if it was time lapse or real time. ArMaP, this discussion of time is just distracting to the meaning of the event.

Well, the title of the video and thread is "UFO Hard turning high speed craft", so the time is relevant to the speed and I thought that speed was the meaning of the event.

If you stop worring about the exact time and study the frames you will ask? where did it come from. It just appeared! So that in my mind is the real question. Did it come from Mom, just sitting there. I caught one frame where it is spitting it out of the bottom. So I consider this event 2 events and no one is noticing the real picture except Crazy Ole me.

The problem is that the video was edited and we don't know how it was edited. While we see the text over the video we can see that the "UFO" was there.


Then the text fades and we get (at 00:23.541) this frame.


Then, on the next frame, we see the "UFO" starting to move.

Moma processed real nice. Better than the child. I'm sure ArMaP can process it for you Flux since I'm on vacation.

OK, I will do my poor man's version of the three frames above.

[deuem]

I belive if you look harder you will find where it spits it out. 36 second mark. The other sections he started a few frames into the event and missed the birth/seperation

[ArMaP]

I belive if you look harder you will find where it spits it out. 36 second mark. The other sections he started a few frames into the event and missed the birth/seperation

I see it now, thanks.

It looks like his editing of the video is worse than I thought, as the "slow motion" part starts some frames before the "realtime" part.

Any way, here's my PMV processing of the second frame I posted (no need to process the first, as it's the same as the third)



And the processing of the third image I posted.

[deuem]

Now, can you go in on the spillout/birth frame and do a nice close up and put them side by side. The original crop you start with next to your finished work. say each side 300 pixels.

Question: rather it is fake or real, would you say that it is coming from the large orb or from behind it or ?

Doing a full frame on night vision gets very busy. I also take the green down to 50% before processing. It helps. You can run a sample both ways if you wish. I have done hundreds of them and this seems to help the most to rebalance the colors. But either change the green or not the end result wil be very similar just more green. It will not change the patterns. You should start to see a red/pink craft.

[ArMaP]

Now, can you go in on the spillout/birth frame and do a nice close up and put them side by side. The original crop you start with next to your finished work. say each side 300 pixels.

I can try.

Question: rather it is fake or real, would you say that it is coming from the large orb or from behind it or ?

The problem with something like this is that we cannot know if it's coming from behind, from inside or in front of the larger "orb". As far as we know it could even be a firefly that was not shown as coming from somewhere else first, as the video was edited.

Doing a full frame on night vision gets very busy.

Yes, I noticed that.

[deuem]

I can wait for your try.

Flux is working on getting in touch with him. They are both from New Zealand.

[ArMaP]

Here's my attempt.

The image I used, where the "UFO" has just appeared.


The processed image


I decided to also use another image, just some frames after.


The processed image.


The process I used was to split the image in the 3 components and then adjust the levels for the blue and green channels, as neither was using the whole 255 values available. Then the images for each channels was processed (gradient map on Gimp) five times and joined back to create the final image.

[deuem]

Ok, The frame i had looked at was a couple before what you did. Right at the bottom. So the question is after you did this what conclusion did you come to? Is it starting at mom? Is it CGI or real? Can you find anything that is out of place, like a CGI mistake? Any copy and paste lines, any bluring swirls? Stuff like that.

Next attempt to almost fill the frame with Mom and alter the process a bit so that the center of mom is not black. Maybe when you get in tighter it will change for you. I can get a clearer center, not a black one. Don't move the white so black. The only white to leave alone is the 255 or just touch it a bit.

You mentioned something about not having all of the 255 colors. That is correct and the tighter you get in on it the less you might get. So the master levels don't have to juggle so many colors around. Might get down to less that 100 or go right to all 255. depending on the print. But the tighter the crop the better the final master color selection is. The money shot or kill shot as they say.

I would say to keep an eye on the center point, it is the hotest and if you alter it too much it will blur out to black like you show. So try not to flip the white in this photo to dark, keep it on this side of white and not the black side.  This is also why I have 4 programs. Sometimes I want to flip it to black as in a white only photo. But I don't like to flip 255 or 0 if I don't have too. So the boundries stay the same overall. I try to work from 1 to 254. If I can. 3 out of 4 programs do this. If I can't then I might slide the entire photo down a step or 2 to get it away from very high or very low. Program Balloons changes every single pixel. I sometimes use that one for spotting.

So I suggest to try again. ArMaP, the original program took 3 months non stop and then years of tweaking and adding programs to get where i am today.  As you can see with your system, the concept once you understand it is rather simple, to take it to canvas was very difficult. That is where I say art comes in. What colors to use. Maybe your sister can help up. What is the right color choice. You need to program something to tell it what colors go to what colors. Tweak that with the artist touch! Have you ever seen any of my videos, they all have a color wheel in the begining. It was there for a reason. get one and study which way to go. This was a key left in every video I made. It is not the wheel(s) I used but it is the concept.

Next zero in on one of the stars up in the sky and see the difference to mother. See how mom rings out in gradients and compare her rings to a star. No matter what you currently think the objects are you should be able by now to start comparing them. How many gradients, what shapes and what is the feel of power in them. Stars seem to ring out almost perfect. Very consistant rings and many times only 3 to 5. In your mom/birth photo there is a lot of red wake on the right side. What caused this? Lack of light, no clouds, her? In the original none of this can be seen but with your new magic you can now enter my world.

[ArMaP]

Ok, The frame i had looked at was a couple before what you did. Right at the bottom.

It would be a great coincidence if I had chosen the same frame as you, I had to choose one at random.

So the question is after you did this what conclusion did you come to? Is it starting at mom? Is it CGI or real? Can you find anything that is out of place, like a CGI mistake? Any copy and paste lines, any bluring swirls? Stuff like that.

The only thing I can see is that the smaller spot appears from the same place as the bigger one, it's impossible to know if it came from inside, behind or in front of it.
I didn't see any signs of CGI either, but it's easy to hide CGI in something like a night vision camera, as the quality of the images is much lower than that of a normal camera.

As for making more attempts, the method I use doesn't allow for the precise control your method uses, although it's possible, but it would be too time consuming and I don't have the time even for the things I had already started (like my image search engine and a program to show and convert images from the IMG format used by NASA and other space agencies) and that I have not worked in for some months.

[deuem]

The only thing I can see is that the smaller spot appears from the same place as the bigger one, it's impossible to know if it came from inside, behind or in front of it.
I didn't see any signs of CGI either, but it's easy to hide CGI in something like a night vision camera, as the quality of the images is much lower than that of a normal camera.

And this is where it gets interesting. You, and I have not found any CGI yet, we both know it is possible to hide better in Night vision so we agree. Since you did step into the ring and processed the photo I will release the Mother/Child print below. Just for you. It is a few frames back from yours, when it first started to pop out.



From here in it gets like reading tea leaves. reading a slide like the one above is not east to do at first. It must be studied carefully or just going WoW! is OK also.