-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free episodes:
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
Mogwa said:
Mogwa that model is great!! I love it. I can image how you modelled it, but one thing I can never understand about these 3d objects is the skin/texture. How did you create such a realistic skin for this thing?
Also, you are going in the right direction lighting-wise, but at the moment it looks like maybe there is some light source coming from the direction of the camera...something subtly illuminating the object.
Great image.
Tom Levine
Skilled Investigator
Mogwa said:
LOL
"Honey, grab me an Evian, wouldja?"...
Mogwa
Skilled Investigator
Thanks for the kind words, Brian.
Texturing is handled pretty much the same way no matter what modeling engine you are using, whether it's 3Ds Max, Lightwave, Rhino, Shade, Cinema 4D, Poser, or Hexagon. Basically, the artist has two options: material shaders and UV maps. Shaders are potentially the simplest to use. They're a sort of a two dimensional colored layer that attempts to capture some of the physical qualities of the material they are intended to represent in a virtual three dimensional environment. Each shader node can be applied to an entire model or any of its individual components.
UV maps offer much more detail. The first step in their creation is to make a projection map based upon the principles of spherical trigonometry. Depending on the display configuration selected...box, planar, cylindrical spherical...yadda yadda yadda, what you get is a 2D outline of the object that suffers from the same sort of distortion encountered in a Mercator terrestrial map. Then it's matter of painting the thing, as if it were an image found in a coloring book. This is where Photoshop becomes an invaluable tool. You can add layer after layer to the original base texture, lending increasingly complex detail. Whenever possible I try to employ photographic scans of real materials, like corrosion, metals, rubber, etc.
The last step of composition is the bump or elevation map. The bump layer fools the human eye into perceiving raised or depressed area features, such as panel lines, wrinkles, dents and pores, to enhance realism when the model is illuminated for rendering.
Rendering is the final three dimensional process, and in my opinion, the most difficult. For the probe scene I used a single source HDRI setup intended to emulate natural sunlight. Once I had established the sun's position, atmospheric qualities and time of day, I covered the virtual terrain with a sky dome. That device literally bounces light in precisely the same way nature does by indexing luminal values of imaginary surrounding objects you can't see, which are then reflected, refracted or absorbed by the primary target(s).
The more complex the scene, the more complex the light pattern. For example, in the probe render, there are model 3D trees positioned in the foreground, behind the camera where the observer can't see them. The light reflects from them in a number of angles and intensities, with the leaves offering different patterns than the trunks because they have different surface values.
If the artist feels it is needed, the image can be imported once again into Photoshop to do postwork correction of errors or add even more detail. I try to avoid this additional step as much as possible for obvious reasons.
CGI software is constantly improving. While I don't believe we are anywhere near achieving totally realistic results yet, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the situation will change quickly. Fifteen years from now, living actors may be as obsolete as wooden false teeth. Think of the possibilities. Studios will be negotiating with copyright holders for the use of images and voices of famous actors from the past in order to create perfect vr models indistinguishable from the originals.
The return of the living dead will become an everyday reality.
I suppose there would still be work for some fortunate few human thespians who possess remarkable voices or especially eye pleasing physical features. Those characteristics could be scanned, recorded and processed, then sold and traded as brand named products, like so much toothpaste.
A visionary programmer might come up with an app that would allow any user to insert a scanned 3D image of himself into any role in any film of his choosing. For the sake of argument, we'll say Star Wars, Episode XXVIII, Darth Mogwa and Princess Leia go to White Castle. Imagine an ornate, futuristic chamber where George Lucas is surrounded by forty seven Imperial Litigators planning a five jillion dollar lawsuit against an eleven year old who has published unauthorized sound clips and photos from one of his films on a website. Suddenly, we hear the crash of broken glass and I come exploding in through a gigantic floor to ceiling window, swinging on a rope, one hand clutching a light saber and the other pressing a buck nekkid Princess Leia to my manly, armored bosom.
Within seconds I slaughter all the lawyers, who are some sort of repulsive slime oozing alien species that resemble diseased snails. I save George for last. With a single hissing swipe of my phony baloney magic saber, I slice off his bearded pygmy head, which I then trade on eBay for seventy three brand new holograhic pinball machines and a case of Dewar's.
Oy! I like! When does movie shoot?
Texturing is handled pretty much the same way no matter what modeling engine you are using, whether it's 3Ds Max, Lightwave, Rhino, Shade, Cinema 4D, Poser, or Hexagon. Basically, the artist has two options: material shaders and UV maps. Shaders are potentially the simplest to use. They're a sort of a two dimensional colored layer that attempts to capture some of the physical qualities of the material they are intended to represent in a virtual three dimensional environment. Each shader node can be applied to an entire model or any of its individual components.
UV maps offer much more detail. The first step in their creation is to make a projection map based upon the principles of spherical trigonometry. Depending on the display configuration selected...box, planar, cylindrical spherical...yadda yadda yadda, what you get is a 2D outline of the object that suffers from the same sort of distortion encountered in a Mercator terrestrial map. Then it's matter of painting the thing, as if it were an image found in a coloring book. This is where Photoshop becomes an invaluable tool. You can add layer after layer to the original base texture, lending increasingly complex detail. Whenever possible I try to employ photographic scans of real materials, like corrosion, metals, rubber, etc.
The last step of composition is the bump or elevation map. The bump layer fools the human eye into perceiving raised or depressed area features, such as panel lines, wrinkles, dents and pores, to enhance realism when the model is illuminated for rendering.
Rendering is the final three dimensional process, and in my opinion, the most difficult. For the probe scene I used a single source HDRI setup intended to emulate natural sunlight. Once I had established the sun's position, atmospheric qualities and time of day, I covered the virtual terrain with a sky dome. That device literally bounces light in precisely the same way nature does by indexing luminal values of imaginary surrounding objects you can't see, which are then reflected, refracted or absorbed by the primary target(s).
The more complex the scene, the more complex the light pattern. For example, in the probe render, there are model 3D trees positioned in the foreground, behind the camera where the observer can't see them. The light reflects from them in a number of angles and intensities, with the leaves offering different patterns than the trunks because they have different surface values.
If the artist feels it is needed, the image can be imported once again into Photoshop to do postwork correction of errors or add even more detail. I try to avoid this additional step as much as possible for obvious reasons.
CGI software is constantly improving. While I don't believe we are anywhere near achieving totally realistic results yet, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the situation will change quickly. Fifteen years from now, living actors may be as obsolete as wooden false teeth. Think of the possibilities. Studios will be negotiating with copyright holders for the use of images and voices of famous actors from the past in order to create perfect vr models indistinguishable from the originals.
The return of the living dead will become an everyday reality.
I suppose there would still be work for some fortunate few human thespians who possess remarkable voices or especially eye pleasing physical features. Those characteristics could be scanned, recorded and processed, then sold and traded as brand named products, like so much toothpaste.
A visionary programmer might come up with an app that would allow any user to insert a scanned 3D image of himself into any role in any film of his choosing. For the sake of argument, we'll say Star Wars, Episode XXVIII, Darth Mogwa and Princess Leia go to White Castle. Imagine an ornate, futuristic chamber where George Lucas is surrounded by forty seven Imperial Litigators planning a five jillion dollar lawsuit against an eleven year old who has published unauthorized sound clips and photos from one of his films on a website. Suddenly, we hear the crash of broken glass and I come exploding in through a gigantic floor to ceiling window, swinging on a rope, one hand clutching a light saber and the other pressing a buck nekkid Princess Leia to my manly, armored bosom.
Within seconds I slaughter all the lawyers, who are some sort of repulsive slime oozing alien species that resemble diseased snails. I save George for last. With a single hissing swipe of my phony baloney magic saber, I slice off his bearded pygmy head, which I then trade on eBay for seventy three brand new holograhic pinball machines and a case of Dewar's.
Oy! I like! When does movie shoot?
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
Open_Mind2007 said:
Oh wow, a C2C catfight in the making! woohoo!
I would offer this example on the differences between the Paracast and C2C. A local conservative talk-show host here in Houston one day was talking about Rush Limbaugh. Now, they both believe the same stuff and vote for the same issues, but he said that Limbaugh's show is first and foremost an entertainment program, while his own show was serious. (just happened to hear him one day). It's perfectly reasonable to assume a huge corporate-made monstrosity like the Limbaugh show is tooled and geared to entertain as many like-minded people as possible.
I think that is similar here. C2C is above all else an entertainment program and should be thought of as such. I know I can stomach it much better sometimes when I keep that in mind.
Open_Mind2007 said:
Thank god for shows like "The Paracast" where the hosts engage the guests in stimulating debate and ask the tough questions that need to be asked. Coast to Coast started off on the right foot many years ago but drifted in to a stagnant sea of mind-numbing garbage. I never rate a show merely on the quality of the guests. I judge the show on how the hosts interact with the guest. Proving whether a guest is believable is an integral part of the formula that makes a show and its hosts credible. Coast to Coast asks the "softball" questions giving guests a pass on the tough ones which has slowly diminished its status as a reputable forum. I would love to see Art Bell ask Maj. Ed Dames about all the bogus predictions he spewed out over the years but we all know a UFO will land on the White House front lawn before that happens.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
These pictures, including Mogwa's, are really good. I'd love to see a coffee table book full of them. I'd buy it in a second. "Fake UFOs; the pictures!" Better than your garden variety blurred, faint, lights in the sky, these babies put real UFOs to shame. Complete with gun ports, port holes, and big-eyed EBEs staring out from inside, these pictures will amaze your friends and enemies alike. "The Adamski II," more than just a lampshade. "Wedding Cake; the Divorce," puts Billy's garbage can lid to shame. The "Lazar Special" You thought the first model was great. This is better! Lucas, you ewoks--outta the way! "Fake UFOs; the pictures"--at your local Barnes & Noble today, or click here to order conveniently from amazon.com. Free shipping!
AJ38
Paranormal Novice
I was just on another site and reading some of the comments people are posting made me laugh,"This craft seems to be a device using the Bi-field Brown effect", "studying the photos it is clear that these are genuine photos of what is certainly an alien probe", "I would warn your readers that if they see this thing to take shelter and not get too close to it", "I was blown away, these are the best images I've ever seen of UFOs", and this is from a guy who has been in graphic design for ten years. 
O
Open_Mind2007
Guest
Now this is dedication.....some more photos of this this "ufo"
J
James
Guest
Earthfiles.com has also posted an article about these latest photos. I'd be interested in hearing Mr. Biedny's assessment of these images, too.
here is the link Earthfiles.com Subscription
there is some things that just dont add up after reading that article, like the writing under the craft or "communications device" as the park ranger said - we dont know what he seen i have a hard time thinking that this is a UAV of any kind or a Drone.
there is some things that just dont add up after reading that article, like the writing under the craft or "communications device" as the park ranger said - we dont know what he seen i have a hard time thinking that this is a UAV of any kind or a Drone.
DBTrek said:
yes and track the down the people and ask them some stuff, check out the people around where they live, put up a red flag. i am sorry that you posted that, we now have 3 people saying they seen this, 2 of which we know are fake(well 1 group of photos are fake other we dont know as of yet, but we can say they are fake) and one of which we dont know if this is in fact what they/he saw or he is a plant, that could be one guy or a bunch of people, its a mystery of who is puttig out the photos and the people that may be working with him if any. people are thinking them to be real after being told the frist bunch of photos are fake.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
I've looked closely at these images, and the fact that anyone would think that they are genuine is just sad. Simply note the different in clarity between the trees and the object in the "Chad" pictures, and you can quickly spot the fakery. At least, that's the deal with my own trained eyes. The type underneath is just ridiculous, and I'm starting to think there's something to the notion that this is viral marketing for the Transformers movie. I've emailed Howe about this situation, and expressed to her that I'm totally unimpressed with her handling of her coverage around this hoax.
dB
dB
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
David Biedny said:
Could be but I don't see how it relates, nothing about it seems to be invovled with metalic turds, walking cuisenarts or the gangrape and murder of my childhood...
Plus Bay said he wanted as little as possible to do with pre-existing Transformers stuff, which presumably includes the whole satelite-that-scans-for-alternate-modes thing.