UFO over Russia - Dec 23 2011, 5 witnesses

[dourpil]

Hello everyone :)

snLj2C_wbzY

Sorry if this has been posted already. Just stumbled upon this video.

[BestLion]

A possible Russian weather balloon? I think thats likely what this is.

[Finch]

Good vid. Plasma, maybe? But that metal sphere in the middle looks exactly like something I saw 10 years ago.

[Words of Joy]

A possible Russian weather balloon? I think thats likely what this is.

If it would be a balloon the light of the city would reflect in a different manner upon the balloon. More on the bottom part of it. But here clearly can be seen that the light is on the left side constantly. Which would rule out reflection of the light of the city imo.

[DarMar]

tracking and matchmoving is awfull. Pixels didn even matched. Fake seen from a plane

[Words of Joy]

tracking and matchmoving is awfull. Pixels didn even matched. Fake seen from a plane

You've investigated all 5 video's intensively?

[BestLion]

tracking and matchmoving is awfull. Pixels didn even matched. Fake seen from a plane

You've investigated all 5 video's intensively?
I watched it twice. my conclusion>
All we see is a light. it is dark outside, and all we see if a hoovering light. We live in 2011 where we have now all types of flight, zeppelins, F16s, rockets, balloons, fireworks..tons of stuff. This video gives me no convincing evidence that whatever that light is, it is not man made!
I also from my intensive research am of the opinion that most if not all UFOs do not come here via spacecrafts..but by other dimensions.
A light in the sky doesn't convince me of anything other then that!

[Words of Joy]

This video gives me no convincing evidence that whatever that light is, it is not man made!

I couldn't say whether it is man made or not. I have never seen anything like it. Have you? And that to be on 5 different video's is interesting imo. Let's just look at 3:25/3:27 of the video. Do you see anything solid or recognizable?

[BestLion]

I couldn't say whether it is man made or not. I have never seen anything like it. Have you? And that to be on 5 different video's is interesting imo. Let's just look at 3:25/3:27 of the video. Do you see anything solid or recognizable?
All I see is a light in the sky. yeah 5 videos by totally different people, but all the same..a light in the sky. We can not conclude this is ET.

[DarMar]

Hi,

You've investigated all 5 video's intensively?

Actually I did even its my job to do tracks and CG compositing i have vey trained eye for visual CG. I can even try to explain better so you understand about what im saying.

Today all compositing programs have very spohisticaded tracking algorithms and are not hard at all, you do it with few clicks if its 2D tracking. Problem is, ALL of youtube "ufo" videos are 2D tracking. That algorithm works by tracking given pixels from screen and work becomes almoust impossible when video is low resolution. And than algorythm has no actual data to work, than is practice to track by hand, frame by frame.. Exactly that happened on 4 clips in this video. "ufo" is jumping in different directions than shot. He didnt have good tracking data and tracking is really awfull there. Note 5th video is waaaay better but.. that shot has awesome tracking data with parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax) elements. So with that info he can do much better tracking, with even slight 3D options ( like zoom, moving aside and so ).

Pixel blending Is really awfull in first 4 shots. Pixels and compression artefacts are not the same from buildings and elements and that "ufo" wasnt there before is put with some software. Vid. nr.4 isnt worth to mention in any case.. Believe me if some profesional did this it would be looking more convincing than this.

Now you noticed that i talk mostly about first 4 vids and didnt touched 5th. Thats because it's different. It is not only different by resoultion and clarity of picture it is different by time of the day too. That one has enough data to make pro track without knowledge cause software has all needed data. Pixel blending isnt easy to notice in this one cause vid is hires and has artefacts from youtube native compresion so examining that could take long time or could be useless. Problem i see in this shot is camera blendings. See camera works by capturing light it uses ccd and sensors to adjust lightning of overall image.
If you take camera to shot wall and point it than to light picture changes dramaticaly (if adjust is set to automatic) if on manual picture wont change at all.
So why when ufo passes by the light on beginning of shot changes blending mode and street light doesnt? what is that? automatic for ufo and manual for light? Looking by the sky background changing shades by zoom id conclude that is automatic setup. With that on thig that i described could happen that ufo changes shade while light not, because its not changed dramaticaly and could be from automation also.
It has blending artifacts and unlogical zooms (it zooms accordingly through constructions to make tracking more convincing). Also on last one in 4:05 camera blend is lowered and picture is darker, problem is that wall in front of ufo got some unnatural artifacts by edges it got darker which hardly can be from camera lens and easily from layered compositing software without much knowledge about matte edge blend and premultiply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_compositing). It happens when amateur crops wall and puts on backround (cause he goota do only that, right) and than he gets unwanted edges which he cant get rid of. On other hand camera shakes are very convincing but thats least of worries cause ive programed even my plugin to do that wih no more than 25 lines of code done in few minutes. Does same job, more zoom gets more shake.

So i hope i did some better explanation than first time :)