gee, 14 pages and you *still* haven't managed to figure out that no one doubts that the casing is an undisputed physical object?
It's an empty case at that. No chroma-key paint, no 3d plastics modeler, or any crap like that.
Look at the iJerk movie for a quick demo of how quickly a fake can be whipped up to at least semi-believability. Had the artist spent a little more time making a better case, they would have another iWalk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
umm, since you're deciding to get snide, i will as well. how does the case not being fake have anything to do with the fact that photoshop doesn't do moving video? i'm not saying that the thing is definitively a real friggin apple device (although i believe it might be), what i'm saying is that the way you're proposing it done and how "easy" it is, is just wrong.
don't be an ass because you claim you could do all this stuff in photoshop and you can't. and in another reply, you tell someone to "pleeze, use photoshop before you make those comments." well, that poster was right, and perhaps they use photoshop more than you. don't assume you're the end-all be-all of photoshop. personally, i've had photos that i've retouched appear in ads in time, people, the new york times, and newsweek. so i've done a bit of retouching work in photoshop. it DOES NOT DO MOVIES.
minguez's way of doing it is mostly correct. while you, on the other hand, offhandedly say it could be done with photoshop, a big chief pad, and an crayon in fifteen minutes and tell everyone that says it's more complicated than that that "the device isn't real!" well gee thanks. maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but at least i know how it WOULD be done. and i would have gone into detail if you had just asked as it seems you really don't know.
also, just because something can be easily faked, does not prove it to be a fake. i can easily fake a shot of you standing at the grand canyon with the right materials. it doesn't mean that you don't have a very similar picture of you at the grand canyon that's legit.
again, i dunno if it's real or not, but all of these expert debunkers talked big about how the shadows were wrong on the apple in the cube photo. and how they could see stamp tool artifacts in the shot of the imac dv se. just presenting a point of view that fakeability does not NECESSARILY discredit.
Comments
<strong>
gee, 14 pages and you *still* haven't managed to figure out that no one doubts that the casing is an undisputed physical object?
It's an empty case at that. No chroma-key paint, no 3d plastics modeler, or any crap like that.
Look at the iJerk movie for a quick demo of how quickly a fake can be whipped up to at least semi-believability. Had the artist spent a little more time making a better case, they would have another iWalk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
umm, since you're deciding to get snide, i will as well. how does the case not being fake have anything to do with the fact that photoshop doesn't do moving video? i'm not saying that the thing is definitively a real friggin apple device (although i believe it might be), what i'm saying is that the way you're proposing it done and how "easy" it is, is just wrong.
don't be an ass because you claim you could do all this stuff in photoshop and you can't. and in another reply, you tell someone to "pleeze, use photoshop before you make those comments." well, that poster was right, and perhaps they use photoshop more than you. don't assume you're the end-all be-all of photoshop. personally, i've had photos that i've retouched appear in ads in time, people, the new york times, and newsweek. so i've done a bit of retouching work in photoshop. it DOES NOT DO MOVIES.
minguez's way of doing it is mostly correct. while you, on the other hand, offhandedly say it could be done with photoshop, a big chief pad, and an crayon in fifteen minutes and tell everyone that says it's more complicated than that that "the device isn't real!" well gee thanks. maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but at least i know how it WOULD be done. and i would have gone into detail if you had just asked as it seems you really don't know.
also, just because something can be easily faked, does not prove it to be a fake. i can easily fake a shot of you standing at the grand canyon with the right materials. it doesn't mean that you don't have a very similar picture of you at the grand canyon that's legit.
again, i dunno if it's real or not, but all of these expert debunkers talked big about how the shadows were wrong on the apple in the cube photo. and how they could see stamp tool artifacts in the shot of the imac dv se. just presenting a point of view that fakeability does not NECESSARILY discredit.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
just say no!
go to another thread, go to another site, just go.
if we wanna dream and "fool" ourselves, so be it.
i(Walk) for one "believe".
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: iBug ]</p>