[IncPen]

I've got cheap video editing software on my computer. I can and have easily put people's heads on other's heads. Insert video with other video.

This is a realm in which I have a fair amount of experience. I'm going to be vague here, out of necessity, but this will illustrate the absurdity of Kelly's claim.

Last fall I had a client who had a multi-million dollar endorsement deal with a ********* manufacturer. I guarantee that you would know who this client is.

My client made the mistake of using a competitor's product in a video that he/she had ready to be released. No one caught it until it was almost too late.

Digitally blurring the competitor's product (held in my client's hand) cost well over $100,000 - for less than 3 minutes (yes, three) minutes of video. The fix we made was a "bandaid" solution, a hack to get the product out the door.

Think: 3 minutes of video @ 30 frames per second = 5,400 frames, each 'blur' hand positioned. We couldn't use motion-tracking because of the fingers in the shot...

We did not replace the offending product with the sponsor's product, we merely blurred out the offending image. Consider this: we had two people working virtually around the clock on state of the art graphics systems for four days to do this. And they gave us a break on the price for eventual bragging rights for having done it.

I can't argue that it's possible to do 'cheesy' stuff in your own home, but to do it on a magnitude that he's claiming - and have it be convincing - is damn near impossible.

Even if I granted him the benefit of the doubt that it 'could' be done, the cost alone would be (easily) into large seven figures.

Mr Kelly, try again.

_{How many FReepers would 'get it' if I mentioned Michael Rivero being called as an expert witness?}

[liberallyconservative]

Is this the same Michael Rivero who runs the website WhatReallyHappened.com which he began after the Vince Foster fiasco?

[ChemistCat]

My hobby is Photoshopping, and I enjoy making hoax pictures. The standard is to make them believable. Even with "perfect" source pics EVERY TIME, it's hours of work for a still image. I worked for twenty hours on a shot of the Clintons snuggling with Saddam Hussein in a hammock. It wasn't perfect. It was VERY GOOD. I'm proud of it, especially Hillary's hand on Saddam's.

But it wouldn't hold up in court. It's fake, and if you know anything about it, you can see that. (The biggest apparent flaw in it isn't a flaw at all--Bill Clinton's arm looks crooked, but that's just source pic. What ISN'T bent about the man?)

To do it on thousands of images from video just to "frame" someone--nobody has that much time. I'm with you, IncPen. I watch a movie like Jurassic Park now and see where things don't match and don't work--and that was done by professionals with much better equipment than I'll ever have. Once you know how this is done and have done it a few times, fakes are very, very easy to spot. The few that are done so perfectly they fool us are rare and represent far too many hours of somebody's time.

The sad thing is that people are so cynical the jury might well believe this defense. My children are quick to doubt what they see in photos. "Is that photoshopped?" they ask. They've seen me work my magic on photos, so they no longer trust that anything is really what it seems..they are not yet sophisticated enough to see the flaws.

[T'wit]

Oh, oh, oh. Does this mean nobody will find that video of Howard Dean, the swing, the air pump with a long hose, the goat wearing a burqa, twelve gerbils, the cardboard tube, the aerosol can of whipping cream and a guest appearance by Courtney Love? :-( :-( :-(

[Boot Hill]

IncPen asks:   "How many FReepers would 'get it' if I mentioned Michael Rivero being called as an expert witness?"

LOL, I don't think he has time now that he has apparently committed himself to being one of Howard Dean's top advisors!   (See "Dean: Bush May Have Been Tipped to 9/11 Attacks")

--Boot Hill