Hubris

Seeing, but Not Believing: A Brief Tutorial

Tim Bayer

Won Over By Reality

By Tim Bayer

When should seeing not be believing? (This, “shark attack” is a fabricated image.)
When should seeing not be believing? (This, “shark attack” is a fabricated image.)

Tim BayerBRIGHTON New York—(Weekly Hubris)—7/29/2013—My previous offering in this space, titled “Dance, Baby, Dance,” comprised a video that featured computer-generated images of babies dancing—a very entertaining commercial, but clearly not the record of a real event. However, due to the power of computers, the lines between “obviously made-up videos” and un-manipulated videos of real events have become very blurred: seeing is no longer a rock-solid basis for believing.

Computer-generated imagery makes it easier than ever before to fabricate a false reality. We must, as a result, be increasingly skeptical when viewing realistic film footage masquerading as coverage of real events, but it is now often exceptionally difficult to separate fabricated videos from real, unaltered footage.

Here’s a dance video featuring Marquese Scott. Is this footage the real deal, or fake? (Answer is below.)

Next, a video that purports to showcase the incredible skill of Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco. Is this real or fake? (Answer, again, below.)

Over the past 20 years, I’ve done a lot of video production and Photoshop work. It used to be easy for me to spot faked videos and photographs. Not any more. The state of computer-generated art is now so sophisticated that it’s much more difficult to distinguish between the genuine and the fabricated.

Here’s an image I created in 2008 for “Toy Haulin’,” an article I wrote for EAA Sport Pilot magazine:

Bayer-Toy-HaulinThis image of me carrying a 250-pound Powered Parachute is (today) clearly fabricated. The capabilities of create convincing computer generated images is so much better than when I created this image in 2008, that my efforts (just five years ago) now appear rudimentary.

These days, I no longer depend on vision to check the reality of images, but tap in to other tools: my understanding of physics, my experience in Photoshop and video production, and my engineering background. Even then, sometimes I still have difficulty separating the genuine from the computer-generated.

Answers re the above:

1) Marquese Scott dancing video: Real.

There are many filmed performances of the amazing dancing moves of Marquese Scott. One live performance was on The Ellen Show. Here is a link:

2) Joe Flacco football trap shooting video: Fabricated.

This video is part of an NFL Fantasy Football League promotion.

Be wary of what you see, as seeing is no longer necessarily a reason to believe, especially when what you see is communicated via a video or photograph. A photograph (or film) may still be worth 1,000 words, but those words may well be 100 percent fiction!

SafeGdriver - Three steps to a safer teenage driver.

Tim Bayer, Webmaster, and Assistant Editor of Weekly Hubris, was born and brought up in Webster, New York. He attended St. Bonaventure University, earning a BS in Computer Science, and then worked in the hi-tech world. In 2002 he turned his creative energies to product development and video production with the release of his first independently produced products. When the demand for web site design and freelance writing increased, he once again switched skill sets . . . to writing and web work. An avid or, to be more accurate, rabid, disc golfer, he may often be found chasing plastic while in pursuit of the perfect round on a disc golf course, or designing and developing disc golf products for Demogrid.com. He says he tries to find the humor hidden in everyday experiences, because, “life is too important to be taken seriously.” (Author photo by Tim Bayer. Author Head Shot Augment: René Laanen.)

3 Comments

  • Alan Ichiyasu

    TIM: AN ADDENDUM TO YOUR LAST CONTRIBUTION.

    I AM IN THE RECORD PRODUCTION BUSINESS AND HAVE A 64 TRACK AUDIO MIXER. AND A MULTITUDE OF EXPENSIVE MAC SOFTWARE THAT DIGITALLY TUNES THE VOCALS OF SINGERS SO THAT IT IS PITCH PERFECT AS WELL AS INSTRUMENTS. NO ONE CAN SING ANYMORE. IT’S KILLING ME. I TOOK 3 YEARS OF VOCAL LESSONS SO I COULD SOLICIT LEGITIMATE VOCALS FROM SINGERS. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. IT IS MORE FINANCIALLY SOUND TO DIGITIZE. AND IF YOU GO TO A CONCERT TO PAY $2000 TO LISTEN TO BRUNO MARS; HOW DO YOU KNOW HE’S NOT LIP SYNCING OR SINGING THROUGH A REAL TIME DIGITAL PITCH CORRECTOR? I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON LIVE TV? I KNOW THEY ARE SYNCING OR USING DIGITAL CORRECTION. AND MANY TIMES WHEN I HAVE THE STOMACH TO WATCH THE TUBE; I CAN HEAR THE DIGITAL ARTIFACTS OF THE GIZMOS. IT IS VERY SUBTLE BUT, THEN I’M TRAINED.

    YOURS,

    A DISGRUNTLED PRODUCER THAT SOMEHOW UNDERSTANDS THE NEEDS OF ART MEDIUMS.

  • Tim Bayer

    Hi Alan,

    The line for entertainment has long since crossed over the line for a reality check. For years, many television shows and movies have required the suspension of disbelief when you watch; Twilight Zone, Start Trek, Star Wars … etc.

    There is a difference between entertainment and faking. Entertainment does not require reality … it is only living up to one standard; Is it entertaining?

    I guess the problem pops up when a faked video is used to promote or sell something more than just the entertainment value. For instance: A video is faked so that it will get millions of hits on youtube – so that the traffic an be used to generate advertising revenue.

    I would say that would only be a negative when the video creator is trying to get lots of hits by passing his fake video off as a real event.

    Hence, if only this one criteria is used – is it entertaining? – then the real-ness of the video does not matter.

    It can get a little fuzzy for sure. Real? Entertainment? Faked passing off as real to get advertising? … perhaps the ultimate determination (judgement) needs to be made by the viewing individual.

    BTW: It turns out that I do not sing very well … perhaps through your magical voice machine I could be a rock star. That would be cool. To be sure, I would have to have the caveat that, “This recording is only for entertainment purposes. The voice portrayed may have been modified from the original to be suitable for this format“.

    Yeah – I could live with that caveat to be a rock star.

    Tim