Fetzer plugs Ace

[simakperrce]

Ace,

why don't you run a demo for all of us to see how video compositing is done these days on live footage. Tell us what equipment is necessary and which software is used. Film for example out of your window (provided you are not sitting in a basement) and do an immediate composite of a car driving by which was taken from footage you filmed earlier. The camera you use to film out of your window must not be put on a tripod, but must be handheld to simulate shakiness. Use a sunny day and not an overcast one so we can check for shadow constellations. There must be at least one zoom in this movie. Do not do any preprocessing on either of the footage (you must provide the original shots of both, the 'live' image and the prerecorded one to check)

I want to see what you are doing on your screen, then and there. I know you can do this stuff with AfterEffects or FinalCut, but I want to see you doing it when the actual film plays, via 'drag and drop' so to say.

Edit: Film the same scene from at least two other perspectives and show us how you composit the driving-by car in a manner that is in perfect sync with the other samples.

If you manage to pull this off in a convincing manner, apply to work with Industrial Light and Magic.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Wouldn't it be simpler to set a shot up that didn't require shadows?

And wouldn't it be simpler to set a shot up that didn't require a zoom?

If I were staging a composite plane shot for 9/11, that's what I would do. Interestingly, the live composite shots on 9/11 had no zoom, and no plane shadow.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace,

why don't you run a demo for all of us to see how video compositing is done these days on live footage. Tell us what equipment is necessary and which software is used. Film for example out of your window (provided you are not sitting in a basement) and do an immediate composite of a car driving by which was taken from footage you filmed earlier. The camera you use to film out of your window must not be put on a tripod, but must be handheld to simulate shakiness. Use a sunny day and not an overcast one so we can check for shadow constellations. There must be at least one zoom in this movie. Do not do any preprocessing on either of the footage (you must provide the original shots of both, the 'live' image and the prerecorded one to check)

I want to see what you are doing on your screen, then and there. I know you can do this stuff with AfterEffects or FinalCut, but I want to see you doing it when the actual film plays, via 'drag and drop' so to say.

Edit: Film the same scene from at least two other perspectives and show us how you composit the driving-by car in a manner that is in perfect sync with the other samples.

If you manage to pull this off in a convincing manner, apply to work with Industrial Light and Magic.

Frankly, this is like me saying, "go hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, then I'll believe your tale about the muslims".

The live 9/11 plane shots were as simple as can be. Child's play compared to many other video fakery tricks being done.

I've explained how they did the 9/11 shots.

They left us a clue. Whether it was intentional or not, they left an undeniable clue. I'll be presenting this in Madison, toward the end of my talk.

 

[peteweaver]

Perhaps you all should take a turn actually reading Dr. Fetzer's article. He summarizes several key points, the 17 second delay is the least of it. Video compositing can be done in real time. The delay would be a little safety net, and would allow the engineers to record the live event, composite the plane in, and run the new video 17 seconds after the fact.

Sadly for the perpetrators, but lucky for those with morals, the safety net was not enough. They screwed up Chopper 5, the nose of the plane image appeared to exit the tower, and they faded to black just a little too late.

Busted.

See you in Madison, Jim Fetzer. I look forward to finally meeting you in person.

Ever considered a career in stand up comedy ? That post was hillarious.

 

[Corsair 115]

Front screen projection is a movie. I think you might mean rear screen projection, the old technique where they would project a moving background onto a screen behind, say, a stationary car. The actors would sit in the car, and stage hands would wiggle the car around. This was the original "real time composite", developed in the early days of film.

You have the basics of rear screen projection correct, except one must note the camera and projector must be synchronized so that the scene is filmed properly.

Front screen projection, also known as front projection, is another special effects technique. It was used extensively in 2001: A Space Odyssey and offered several advantages over rear screen projection.

Optical printing is where photographic images are projected making an exposure onto another piece of film. This was the original "offline" method of compositing.

Not projected, but otherwise, yes. Optical printing ties into mattes. Why is that and what is the significance?

I think in another post somewhere you were asking about stop motion. That's like Gumby, where you expose one frame at a time, and move real objects around.

Good! But stop-motion animation has one drawback in terms of imaging - do you know what it is?

Focal length, technically speaking, is the distance from the center of a lens back to the point where the image focuses at infinity. In practical terms, focal length is the amount of zoom.

Good. But how does changing it affect how an image looks?

Oh, depth of field. Jeez, I took high school photography. We have cameras. The wider the aperture, the more out-of-focus are objects farther and closer from the focal point. The smaller the aperture, the better the focus on objects farther and closer than the focal point.

Yes, but something else besides the f-stop setting affects the depth-of-field. What is it?

Now, as I said, none of that has to do with video fakery on 9/11.

They have everything to do with it, because understanding all these elements and having some sort of background knowledge on special effects history and techniques allows one to be much better positioned to examine whether or not a particular image or video/film is real or not.

My Aliens powerloader challenge is still open for you, or anyone else who might be interested in trying it. I'll even point to the exact moment on the DVD to watch. I know what I saw wrong with it, and I'm always curious to know if others saw or can see the same thing I did. I wish I had access to a good forwards/backwards clip to test with also. I saw a great example of it on TV the other day too...

I discuss the relevant technology. They used software-based video composting, not any of that ancient stuff you wanted to quiz me on.

The technology may have changed, but the basics of how effects work is still the same.

Corsair, how would you like a special sneak preview of my irrefutable proof of video composting on Chopper 7? If I sent it to you PM, could you give me a little review, without posting it anywhere?

That's kind of you to offer, but I'm not exactly objective on this, am I? In fact, I'm ruthlessly partisan. But that's because the claim of video footage from 9/11 is faked is equal in my eyes to someone claiming the footage from the Apollo moon landings were faked - it's a starting point that is so self-evidently wrong I can't see how anyone can honestly believe in it. The fixation upon one particular bit of footage also ignores the very important point that it is the totality of the evidence which supports the official version of events. It's not just one piece of evidence here or one there, it's all of it together which reinfornces and supports all the other pieces. How can anyone even hope to discredit that totality? (And that's why I keep mentioning the forty-plus other 9/11 camera angles and the many still photos and the huge number of eyewitnesses. One particular video in the face of that totality is insignificant.)

Besides, if you're looking for technical criticism, gumboot or a couple of the other folks here are much more versed in the technical specifics. Me, I'm just a generalist with some background knowledge. My biggest asset is a pair of eyes that are excellent at spotting special effects. It comes from a lifetime of having watched science-fiction and special effects movies since I was a kid. I started with the old stuff and then while still a young fellow Star Wars came along and ushered in a whole new era of special effects, which was later superceded by the digital era. These eyes are just very good at picking out the subtle elements which betray most special effects, even the CGI ones in use (overuse I would say) today. It's something which is hard to explain in writing; if I was sitting beside someone and watching a movie with them then it'd be easier to point this problem or that.

 

[8den]

I'm going to try this week, to get a couple of examples of video footage of a quality ace works with as a composer and compare it with the uncompressed originals. Part of the problem is going to find an ftp site that adds no further compression, so we can compare the dubious quality ace footage with uncompressed originals. It should highlight how little ace knows about this field.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Good! But stop-motion animation has one drawback in terms of imaging - do you know what it is?

There is no motion blur.

Good. But how does changing [zoom] affect how an image looks?

For one thing, the higher the zoom, the larger become small objects in the background. We've all seen the shot of the wolf howling at the moon, and the moon looks huge in the background. That had to be a very high zoom.

Yes, but something else besides the f-stop setting affects the depth-of-field. What is it?

Uh, format size? I don't know, what?

[Ancient compositing techniques] have everything to do with [9/11], because understanding all these elements and having some sort of background knowledge on special effects history and techniques allows one to be much better positioned to examine whether or not a particular image or video/film is real or not.

That is absurd. The limitations of one technology do not necessarily have any correlation with the limitations of some other technology.

My Aliens powerloader challenge is still open for you, or anyone else who might be interested in trying it. I'll even point to the exact moment on the DVD to watch. I know what I saw wrong with it, and I'm always curious to know if others saw or can see the same thing I did. I wish I had access to a good forwards/backwards clip to test with also. I saw a great example of it on TV the other day too...

I don't have Aliens. Whatever is wrong with that FX shot may not have anything to do with what is wrong with the 9/11 shots. The motion of the airplanes is unstable. It is impossible for a stable shot of a real airplane flying through air to be so unstable. There is also another problem with Chopper 7. It is such a serious problem that it is impossible for it to have occurred, except in a composite image.

The technology may have changed, but the basics of how effects work is still the same.

Yes and no. The fundamental problems to overcome are the same - distance, shadow, perspective, color, borders, timing, etc. But the tools are completely different.

That's kind of you to offer, but I'm not exactly objective on this, am I? In fact, I'm ruthlessly partisan. But that's because the claim of video footage from 9/11 is faked is equal in my eyes to someone claiming the footage from the Apollo moon landings were faked - it's a starting point that is so self-evidently wrong I can't see how anyone can honestly believe in it. The fixation upon one particular bit of footage also ignores the very important point that it is the totality of the evidence which supports the official version of events. It's not just one piece of evidence here or one there, it's all of it together which reinfornces and supports all the other pieces. How can anyone even hope to discredit that totality? (And that's why I keep mentioning the forty-plus other 9/11 camera angles and the many still photos and the huge number of eyewitnesses. One particular video in the face of that totality is insignificant.)

Besides, if you're looking for technical criticism, gumboot or a couple of the other folks here are much more versed in the technical specifics. Me, I'm just a generalist with some background knowledge. My biggest asset is a pair of eyes that are excellent at spotting special effects. It comes from a lifetime of having watched science-fiction and special effects movies since I was a kid. I started with the old stuff and then while still a young fellow Star Wars came along and ushered in a whole new era of special effects, which was later superceded by the digital era. These eyes are just very good at picking out the subtle elements which betray most special effects, even the CGI ones in use (overuse I would say) today. It's something which is hard to explain in writing; if I was sitting beside someone and watching a movie with them then it'd be easier to point this problem or that.

And what I'm telling you is that, in a sense, 9/11 planes weren't even a special effect. They were real videos of a real plane, composited into a real video of a real tower exploding. The technical problems were child's play compared to FX shots that are done on a daily basis in Hollywood.

I'll PM Gumboot.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm going to try this week, to get a couple of examples of video footage of a quality ace works with as a composer and compare it with the uncompressed originals. Part of the problem is going to find an ftp site that adds no further compression, so we can compare the dubious quality ace footage with uncompressed originals. It should highlight how little ace knows about this field.

Do you think you have a point? LOL. I went to a screening of a film I scored just last week. The theater showed it in HD. Do you think I don't know the difference between that and the quicktimes I worked with while I was scoring it? Please.

In fact, In Madison I'm going to point out a few errors in September Clues. One error is that the plane in Chopper 7 appears to cross over the edge of the tower slightly. This is a compression artifact. My control video does the same thing when it is compressed, even though the DV version does not. I'll show the audience both.

I've been analyzing the best quality copies available, and determining the proper margin of error for a particular format.

 

[pomeroo]

Do you think you have a point? LOL. I went to a screening of a film I scored just last week. The theater showed it in HD. Do you think I don't know the difference between that and the quicktimes I worked with while I was scoring it? Please.

In fact, In Madison I'm going to point out a few errors in September Clues. One error is that the plane in Chopper 7 appears to cross over the edge of the tower slightly. This is a compression artifact. My control video does the same thing when it is compressed, even though the DV version does not. I'll show the audience both.

I've been analyzing the best quality copies available, and determining the proper margin of error for a particular format.

Have any real video analysts, apart from the ones who post in this forum, commented on your "work"?

Why not?

They're ALL in on it?

 

[T.A.M.]

yes it is amazing how such thorough, dedicated researchers/investigators like ACE can't find a single Video Analyst to compare notes with...

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Have any real video analysts, apart from the ones who post in this forum, commented on your "work"?

Why not?

They're ALL in on it?

I contacted TREC. They said:

Sir

TREC works for law enforcement, attorneys, the courts, investigators and
industrial security, but not private individuals. Thank you for your
interest in TREC's technology.

 

[pomeroo]

I contacted TREC. They said:

It goes without saying that you're not embarrassed by the curt dismissal of your moonshine. On the contrary, you regard it as more proof that TREC, like everyone else, is in on it. Do you think a real video analyst will ever comment on something so fatuous as your "work"?

 

[8den]

Do you think you have a point? LOL. I went to a screening of a film I scored just last week. The theater showed it in HD. Do you think I don't know the difference between that and the quicktimes I worked with while I was scoring it? Please.

Did you walk away from that screening with a HD copy? Do you regularly work with HD masters with video editing software? No. So the point still stands you arguing about your experience with things like video artifacting when you don't work with uncompressed video is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ joke.

In fact, In Madison I'm going to point out a few errors in September Clues. One error is that the plane in Chopper 7 appears to cross over the edge of the tower slightly. This is a compression artifact. My control video does the same thing when it is compressed, even though the DV version does not. I'll show the audience both.

I've been analyzing the best quality copies available, and determining the proper margin of error for a particular format.

So you admit all the videos you work with have some form of compression already?

Also please explain who will be determining the "proper margin of error" a Forensic video lab? You? With no prior video editing or video forensic experience?

 

[T.A.M.]

ACE is the type of expert the truthers like best...the self made through the internet and "video analysis for dummies".

TAM

 

[Calcas]

I contacted TREC. They said:

"Sir

TREC works for law enforcement, attorneys, the courts, investigators and
industrial security, but not private individuals. Thank you for your
interest in TREC's technology."

Normal translation.

"Uh, thanks for contacting us but we have REAL work with REAL professionals to do here. Please don't contact us again with your loony theories."

Twoofer translation.

"Yes, we are obviously part of the NWO conspiracy. If you contact us again we send the MIB over to de-progame you immediately."

 

[simakperrce]

Frankly, this is like me saying, "go hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, then I'll believe your tale about the muslims".

Pudding <> Proof

You keep on telling us that it is simple as child's play. So if it is so simple, why not run an experiment that proves it is possible? That's the way things are done in science. You have a hypothesis then you try to support it with an experiment. Experiment fails, your hypothesis is likely crap.

As for shadows: I don't care. Just as long as you can show us that real-time video compositing is possible without being spotted as fakery -- from different angles using different footage -- I should be happy.

 

[332nd]

Frankly, this is like me saying, "go hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, then I'll believe your tale about the muslims".

Except for the destruction of the plane, the building, and the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people.