Live translation from space

Star Trek looks very realistic as well. 

Star Trek looks very realistic as well.  Wait, do you believe that Star Trek is real?

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 12:59:11 PM

Star Trek looks very realistic as well. 

How do you really know it is a live feed?  Because NASA told you it is?

BiJane, this is considered low content and not appropriate for the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 01:13:46 PM

BiJane, this is considered low content and not appropriate for the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

I know. Worth it.

On topic, though: the amount of data that would need to be made for a live feed, constantly running, is tremendous. you'd have round-the-clock fakers working. How likely do you think that is?

Star Trek looks very realistic as well.  Wait, do you believe that Star Trek is real?

Where do you see nasa logo there?
There are a lot independent satelites that roam around without involvement of nasa.

On topic, though: the amount of data that would need to be made for a live feed, constantly running, is tremendous. you'd have round-the-clock fakers working. How likely do you think that is?

Yeah, it took over 12,000 cpu cores and 11.5 hours per frame to render Cars 2, and thats not photo-realistic, where are the people and resources to do a 24 hour stream?

Actually, to anybody with a working knowledge of CGI, Star Trek is very obviously faked.  If you truly think that Star Trek looks "very realistic" jroa, then I can understand why you're so easily fooled by all the YouTube videos that the flat earth brigade mock up to support their claims.  If you can't differentiate between a live satellite transmission from space and a kid's TV show, then I'm sorry, but you're poorly equipped to be commenting about the posted link.

All they need is a continuous loop and bam, it is a perpetual live stream.

Looks just as realistic as anything that NASA puts out.

Looks just as realistic as anything that NASA puts out.

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 01:36:19 PM

Looks just as realistic as anything that NASA puts out.

Are you claiming that this is not a genuine image taken from the ISS jroa?

Can you tell me what exactly leads you to this conclusion?

You'll need to be period-accurate. Don't forget when NASA first started handing out pictures.

Are you saying this is a real planet with a starship in orbit?

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 01:38:52 PM

You'll need to be period-accurate. Don't forget when NASA first started handing out pictures.

If we are period specific for both Star Trek and NASA videos, then, in my opinion, the ST graphics look much better than the moon landing images.

Except that has none of the hallmarks we expect in cg at that time. It's grainy, but it's textured: texture which you'll notice is very much lacking.
That's cg's failing, even now: the time needed for all the little bumps and details is incredible. With a large image, it's easy to tell.

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 02:09:14 PM

Except that has none of the hallmarks we expect in cg at that time. It's grainy, but it's textured: texture which you'll notice is very much lacking.
That's cg's failing, even now: the time needed for all the little bumps and details is incredible. With a large image, it's easy to tell.

Yes, in the 60s, CGI was not very good, just like your ST picture. 

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 02:11:51 PM

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 02:09:14 PM

Except that has none of the hallmarks we expect in cg at that time. It's grainy, but it's textured: texture which you'll notice is very much lacking.
That's cg's failing, even now: the time needed for all the little bumps and details is incredible. With a large image, it's easy to tell.

Yes, in the 60s, CGI was not very good, just like your ST picture. 

Yep, I'd agree completely: which is how we can tell the level of detail in your moon landing photo, rather than Star Trek, means it must be an actual photo, and that the photos of the very much round Earth from the moon at that time were, in turn, genuine.

Are you saying that it is not possible to make a photo grainy in order to cover up imperfections in a fake photo or video?

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 02:32:59 PM

Are you saying that it is not possible to make a photo grainy in order to cover up imperfections in a fake photo or video?

Aside from the fact I referred to other photos, graininess doesn't explain the detail on the moon's surface. CGI is just not a valid explanation: you could maybe argue that particular one was taken in a studio, but that doesn't touch the photos of the Earth.

Quote from: NONcom on February 19, 2015, 01:14:59 PM

Where do you see nasa logo there?
There are a lot independent satelites that roam around without involvement of nasa.

All they need is a continuous loop and bam, it is a perpetual live stream.

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 01:16:09 PM

On topic, though: the amount of data that would need to be made for a live feed, constantly running, is tremendous. you'd have round-the-clock fakers working. How likely do you think that is?

Please read my statement above.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 19, 2015, 01:21:45 PM

Yeah, it took over 12,000 cpu cores and 11.5 hours per frame to render Cars 2, and thats not photo-realistic, where are the people and resources to do a 24 hour stream?

Please read my statement above.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 19, 2015, 01:29:21 PM

Actually, to anybody with a working knowledge of CGI, Star Trek is very obviously faked.  If you truly think that Star Trek looks "very realistic" jroa, then I can understand why you're so easily fooled by all the YouTube videos that the flat earth brigade mock up to support their claims.  If you can't differentiate between a live satellite transmission from space and a kid's TV show, then I'm sorry, but you're poorly equipped to be commenting about the posted link.

Looks just as realistic as anything that NASA puts out.

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 02:36:50 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 02:32:59 PM

Are you saying that it is not possible to make a photo grainy in order to cover up imperfections in a fake photo or video?

Aside from the fact I referred to other photos, graininess doesn't explain the detail on the moon's surface. CGI is just not a valid explanation: you could maybe argue that particular one was taken in a studio, but that doesn't touch the photos of the Earth.

I did not say it was CGI.  If I was going to make a fake photo that I did not want people to know was fake, I would make it blurry or grainy, like the pictures of big foot and UFOs.

Quote from: jroa on February 19, 2015, 02:11:51 PM

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 02:09:14 PM

Except that has none of the hallmarks we expect in cg at that time. It's grainy, but it's textured: texture which you'll notice is very much lacking.
That's cg's failing, even now: the time needed for all the little bumps and details is incredible. With a large image, it's easy to tell.

Yes, in the 60s, CGI was not very good, just like your ST picture. 

Yep, I'd agree completely: which is how we can tell the level of detail in your moon landing photo, rather than Star Trek, means it must be an actual photo, and that the photos of the very much round Earth from the moon at that time were, in turn, genuine.

Good for you. That doesn't mean every grainy photo is fake, given that such photos would have to be the norm at that time. And if they're not CGI, you have no explanation.

Quote from: BiJane on February 19, 2015, 02:47:52 PM

Good for you. That doesn't mean every grainy photo is fake, given that such photos would have to be the norm at that time. And if they're not CGI, you have no explanation.

This was the 1960s.  They  had very good cameras and film back then.  If this picture was taken during the civil war, you might have a point.

sokarul, stop making low content posts in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Looks just as realistic as anything that NASA puts out.