Started this thread because the iWalk thread is getting way to long and I think the important point here is to disprove the video. Why, because the best way to prove something is true is to try and disprove it. Only when there is no way to disprove something can you know that it is real.
That being said, I feel pretty confident that this is a fake. There are too many discrepencies in the video to make it real. Mainly because the only time the "iWalk" is being moved around is when it is off. When the system is finally turned on (right after a cut scene I might add) it is SOLIDLY placed on the desk and the hands that are using it seem to be acting VERY careful not to bump or move the unit while it is "on". This would make for a much easier mock up of a fake OS using some fairly basic video technics, maybe even as simple as a blue screen were the "real screen" is supposed to be. Also, during the sayhello.mov the hand is positioned so that you can't see the actual tip of the pen touching the screen, again this would make it much easier to mock up since keeping the pen tip and the drawing on the screen in sync with eachother would be a bit more difficult then just completly hiding it from the viewer. Now if that unit was getting picked up and moved around while on and the sayhello.mov showed the actual tip of the pen writing on the screen it would make for a much more convincing video. That's not to say it wouldn't be possible to mock up a video with it doing those things but it would take a considerable amount of time and know how of some higher end video editing software to do (something most hoaxers don't bother with). I would estimate a hoax like this one wouldn't take no more then a half hour to do with some basic video equipment and skills. Also it was pointed out to me that on the bootup.mov at 7 secs 8 frames in there is a jump cut edit - you can tell because the jog-wheel in a single frame is in an entirely new position while rotating and the person's finger jumps from below the dial to above the dial (or jog wheel).
One of my collegues who works in a post production house noticed a couple other things as well. here are his comments which after rewatching the footage I agree completly with
Here's another observation - on the sayhello.mov if you look at the top of the quicktime movie you'll see a whiteish line, very typical of untouched up video, at the point that the hand writing turns into text the whiteline disappears and doesn't reappear until the hand stops writing on the screen. Another indication of a touch-up job.
The white line is a cut at the beginning of the movie and is a dissolve at the end of the movie.... video glitches NEVER dissolve themselves onto the screen. It's fake. Also in the upper left of the quicktime movie you can see a black underscore mark blinking on and off throughout the movie - in fact it changes position over the course of the movie. The underscore perfectly matches the cursor on the iWalk screen. Whoever SFX this did a poor job of masking the cursor layer and left a little bit of it floating outside of the unit on the upper portion of the screen - everytime the cursor moves the phantom underscore moves.
I hate to see people miss these important points and hoepfully being the head message will grab more peoples attention instead of getting swamped in the iWalk thread. You should be able to verify these discrepencies on your own video. They aren't that hard to see if you look a little more closely.
That being said, I feel pretty confident that this is a fake. There are too many discrepencies in the video to make it real. Mainly because the only time the "iWalk" is being moved around is when it is off. When the system is finally turned on (right after a cut scene I might add) it is SOLIDLY placed on the desk and the hands that are using it seem to be acting VERY careful not to bump or move the unit while it is "on". This would make for a much easier mock up of a fake OS using some fairly basic video technics, maybe even as simple as a blue screen were the "real screen" is supposed to be. Also, during the sayhello.mov the hand is positioned so that you can't see the actual tip of the pen touching the screen, again this would make it much easier to mock up since keeping the pen tip and the drawing on the screen in sync with eachother would be a bit more difficult then just completly hiding it from the viewer. Now if that unit was getting picked up and moved around while on and the sayhello.mov showed the actual tip of the pen writing on the screen it would make for a much more convincing video. That's not to say it wouldn't be possible to mock up a video with it doing those things but it would take a considerable amount of time and know how of some higher end video editing software to do (something most hoaxers don't bother with). I would estimate a hoax like this one wouldn't take no more then a half hour to do with some basic video equipment and skills. Also it was pointed out to me that on the bootup.mov at 7 secs 8 frames in there is a jump cut edit - you can tell because the jog-wheel in a single frame is in an entirely new position while rotating and the person's finger jumps from below the dial to above the dial (or jog wheel).
One of my collegues who works in a post production house noticed a couple other things as well. here are his comments which after rewatching the footage I agree completly with
Here's another observation - on the sayhello.mov if you look at the top of the quicktime movie you'll see a whiteish line, very typical of untouched up video, at the point that the hand writing turns into text the whiteline disappears and doesn't reappear until the hand stops writing on the screen. Another indication of a touch-up job.
The white line is a cut at the beginning of the movie and is a dissolve at the end of the movie.... video glitches NEVER dissolve themselves onto the screen. It's fake. Also in the upper left of the quicktime movie you can see a black underscore mark blinking on and off throughout the movie - in fact it changes position over the course of the movie. The underscore perfectly matches the cursor on the iWalk screen. Whoever SFX this did a poor job of masking the cursor layer and left a little bit of it floating outside of the unit on the upper portion of the screen - everytime the cursor moves the phantom underscore moves.
I hate to see people miss these important points and hoepfully being the head message will grab more peoples attention instead of getting swamped in the iWalk thread. You should be able to verify these discrepencies on your own video. They aren't that hard to see if you look a little more closely.
