Re: [NTLK] iWalk

From: Denis Krasnov (dkrasnov_at_nyc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 00:34:26 EST


>
> Denis Krasnov (dkrasnov_at_nyc.rr.com) wrote:
>
>> This is an artefact, and though it has probably originated during encoding
>> end only reinforced then you decoded it, it appearance can be minimized by
>> using more accurate decoding techniques ( this is what I've done).
>
> In your version, the text "say" moves while the background, though not
> rock-solid, does not. The relative motion, however, is still there.
>
>> Now, to see an irrefutable proof that it was an artefact for yourself look
>> at the letters "He..", which are being written at the same time. They appear
>> to be at a lock with the rest of the screen, to put it in other words only
>> the word "Say" jiggles , not all of the text. The contrary would be the case
>> if the text was overlaid, to put it differently, if the text was overlaid it
>> would appear to jiggle as one - the "He" would jiggle too.
>
> I suppose you refer to the hand-written input, as all the recognized
> text, including "hello" and "to", moves in synch? I don't think anyone
> claimed that was overlaid as well. As a matter of fact, I think it's
> likely that some existing PDA was used for this hoax, so that painting on

See, that is exactly what I postulated at the first place !
The point is - this is a real unit which can be lifted, booted up and it's
screen indeed displays something. What is its purpose ? - blind me ! Who
made it ? - not a clue ! I thought the idea of Apple killing not just Newton
but an even better PDA ( iWalk) too, would be popular, but apparently it's
not. OK. What the community would like it to be - UPO (Unidentified Pocket
Object) , iVan (iPac which was ran over by a van )... Unless someone points
out the unit in existence, which can be disguised in this sort of way - it
can only be considered a prototype made by someone , maybe not apple ...
But the point still there - it is a ... thing .
 
> the screen was certainly possible. Newton-like HWR, as the movie
> allegedly demonstrates, is something else entirely. Not that it would
> have been impossible to do a mock-up that appears to do just that, but a
> less-than-perfect mock-up plus overlay might have been a more cost-
> effective solution.

No , it can't be done. If someone had to do that, they would have to use
motion controlled cameras, then a unit should be furnished with blue screen
, and special marks to record its movements via motion detectors, the same
marks should be places on the hand ( those marks should be later digitally
removed in postproduction) , then a 3d scene should be created with a flat
screen floating in space and a 3d model of the hand ( which must be made
invisible by the camera directly , but only as a reflection) and proper
lighting, then it can be digitally composed, colour corrected and retouched.
After all, considering the price of this project , which would clime to six
figures, it's a shame they didn't printed it on 72mm film with Dolby
Surround !
>
> BTW, what do you make of the fact that one of the images did show a
> specifically tailored test page on the SpyMac site? And again, why do you

This would take minutes to do.

> believe SpyMac can be trusted when these guys have even admitted a fake
> (the earlier iWalk images, originally presented as photographs)?

And this wouldn't take long to accomplish.

It's simple , the things which are easy to do , I believe they made up.
The iWalk movie only could be an easy task if someone somehow had got a unit
in his hands which could be mocked up to look like Apple PDA.
 
>
> - Michael
>
>
> Michael J. Hussmann
>
> E-mail: michael_at_michael-hussmann.de
> WWW: http://michael-hussmann.de

It's not about trusting the SpyMac at all.
The first thing i protested against was the usual "idealization of the hoax
maker", it's very common this days. When people see something they can't
explain or don't want to, they attribute it to all mighty hoax makers -
those guys can make anything they want ! And when it comes to how , there
are always myriads of technical terms common people don't know anything
about, but certain that they can be used as an explanation - 3d, video
composing , etc. It's a sort of common belief in technological magic. We see
it in the movies all the time - the goofy technician moves a slider on the
screen and suddenly image becomes 100 times sharper, where pixels were the
size of suspect's head we now see a pony tail, now hero asks the tech to
better it up just a bit more, the clever one gives camera a smirk, presses a
red button and voila , we can see what's in the bad guy's pocket now. It
ain't real. There is no machine like we saw in "Running Man" which can just
replace one bloke on the screen with another. And when people are implying
that there is , it really hearts me .
 

Cheers, Denis

-- 
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
	mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:02:16 EST