Just doing a little editing. The original implied that the camera operator – and how do you know it was a male? – had really long legs.
Ah a 2000s-style viral ad.
There was a thread a month or two ago with a similar-looking video (very well-done fake) from youtube, with some very funky-looking craft that hovered but made no sound. Also a part of the viral ad campaign. Unfortunately, I can’t do a search for “ufo,” so I can’t link it.
I think it may be a Crysis ad… IIRC the plot for Crysis involves crashed UFOs.
Ah. Here is the thread I was thinking of, talking about a ufo in some pictures. After a few clicks, I found this cool video with the (cgi) ufo from the pictures. Very realistic, like in the video the OP references.
When you render something in CG, it has a perfect “alpha channel”, that is a transparent background, that you can then layer any footage you want behind it.
In order for it to match perfectly with the camera movements, there are several ways to achieve it, but the most common is called “motion tracking” where computer software can scan the footage and follow key pixels or marker points, and gauge where the camera is in relation to the other objects, and how it’s moving. It can even make a guess on zoom and lens settings. This information can be input into the CG rendering software, where you can use it for your virtual camera and apply the UFO computer models’ movements to fit the camera’s motions.
Then, once all rendered, you composite the layers of live footage and CG UFOs together, making sure that you have matched colours, lighting angles, etc, and that you have “masked out” parts of the CG layers to give the appearance of going behind the objects in the footage (like trees or buildings etc). Masking, or “rotoscoping”, can be tedious and painstaking, as you sometimes have to draw around complex shapes that move. Hair is something that really sucks to have to make a mask for.
Though they don’t do this in the footage shown here, you can also, in your CG application, assemble some basic shapes that match what’s present in the live footage, such as ground and walls, in the right places so that shadows fall upon them accurately. You can then render those in a separate pass and layer them into your composited footage, adjusting its opacity and colouring to make it look as realistic as possible.
Ah. As someone pointed out in the comments on YouTube, all the palm trees look exactly the same in this video.
Dare I suggest that it was, perhaps, swamp balls?
There are a few different, but similar videos on Youtube - several copies of the one we’re looking at here, plus:
UFOs over Dominican Republic:
UFO over Paris:
Just chiming in here to ditto the “alpha channels, plus really clever masking” thing. (I’m learning how to do just that right now.)
Now, if you’ll just pay attention to this little red light over here… 
Trees are harder to fake than UFOs.
Nicely done. The show “Firefly”, as far as I know, was the first to combine CGI spaceships with visual flares, going in and out of focus, “camera vibration”, etc. to give that feeling of looking at a real object. Later widely used (as in “Battlestar Galactica”).
I, for one, welcome our new masters…
Regards
FML
I remember reading that thread, but the aliens in this video (in my OP) are obviously using a totally different technology.
Thank you for the explanation Guanolad.
So is the CGI work that is possible nowadays good enough that the only indication that this is animation is by using common sense (no press reports, anonymous video, etc.) - in other words, as KneadToKnow says, it has to be fake because it’s just too improbable? It’s true that the trees all look very much alike, but I’ve seen new developments in Southern California where all the newly planted palm trees look like clones.
Also, if a few spaceships slowly passes by somewhere, in broad daylight, I’d be very surprised if there was only one guy pointing his camera at it.
It is. Chances are, unless you’re looking at a giant robot or a spaceship or something else that’s improbable, you won’t recognize CGI in many big-budget movies these days.
With software programs like Autodesk’s 3dS Max, LightWave and Maya, you can create a lighting setup to mimic the conditions in a video. In this case, mostly just outdoor ambient light at a certain time, date and location which you can simply select within the software. The software can then track the reflection and scattering of the light for very realistic effects.
The software will let you add aditional effects like motion blur (the streaking effect of fast moving objects or camera motion) and depth of field (the bluring of objects as you focus the camera on a point closer or further away) and light blooms (the lighting effects from the ships engines).
For matching the softwares camera to the original footage, you can put a couple of simple objects in your rendering that reference objects in the footage and match them up. You don’t need to do every single frame. You can set up “key frames” every ten frames or so and the computer will fill in the rest. Shouldn’t be hard for a 22 second clip.
Your rendered space ship can then be composited over the original footage.
In a grainy 640x480 YouTube clip, you wouldn’t be able to notice the tell-tale signs that you are looking at a
Here’s the “common sense” that makes me think these are not spacecraft from extraterrestrials:
- We are on planet full of Homo Sapiens, many of which who are known to make both fake videos of flying craft, and even actual flying craft as well.
- We are unaware of any extraterrestrials at all, let alone any that both make flying craft, and also fly such craft to our planet.
- Although it is extremely likely that there are extraterrestrials that indeed make flying crafts, we have pretty good reason to believe it would be very difficult to get them here to Earth, even if they had the desire to do so and the knowledge that Earth even exists in the vastness of the universe.
These are the reasons why the video in the OP (or any video for that matter) is far, far, more likely to have a simple terrestrial origin. Even if it’s an actual flying craft with no CGI or video trickery.
Another indicator that it’s a fake, to me, is that the photographer keeps the crafts perfectly centered in the frame at all times. Amateur photographers usually have a very shaky, wobbling technique. One would think that the sudden presence of a big-ass UFO sailing by would increase the jumpiness by a huge factor. It would for me, anyway.
Sure, but what I gather from this thread, if I constructed a mechanism that can fly like that and filmed it in the air, there is no way, just from watching the video, that an expert could determine if the footage is fake or not.
ETA: I guess this has always been true, if someone wanted to spend enough time to fake a photograph or a film, it was possible to make the fakery almost undetectable, it’s just much easier now.
Some info on it being or not being CGI here.