Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod Video Photo - a Fake

Another problem I have with the first character:

In the video, it makes a clean right angle at the top.

In the picture originally on Flickr and used later in the video, the line extends above the cross bar (sorry, I know nothing about calligraphy or terminology of Mandarin, so if I am vague, perhaps pics will help)

Beginning of Video:
attachment.php


Later in Video:
attachment.php


To be clear, look at the first character here:
attachment.php


Definitely something fishy here...much like other things regarding the video. I love Apple, and given the fact that legal action vs. TS and others hasn't shut down the rumors, this is totally possible. Respect to the Hon. Steve Jobs, you really have people in a bind!
 

Attachments

  • original.jpg
    original.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 1,001
  • Later.jpg
    Later.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 962
  • LaterII.jpg
    LaterII.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 1,002
I don't know how many of you fellow photoshoppers document all of your fakery by recording it on your computer. I certainly don't (think about performance drops). I'm sure that whoever made the fake saw all the buzz on apple forums and wanted to show how the photo was accomplished. Thus, a new fake 6g ipod would have to be created. This of course will be different than the original fake (lol oxymoron) because no two photoshop creations are the same.

It'd be nice with all the new buzz this video has created to have the author once again come out and maybe make "The making of the making of the 6g fake".
 
The video's fake because of the tape. If I went through all the trouble of writing Chinese on the tape and all that, I wouldn't throw it away. Where's the beef, Mr Trickster? Where's the beef?
 
I said in the other posts that it HAD to be a fake basically because of the screen.

Anyway, it was a pretty dam convincing picture in the first place.

I just hope we don't get into a semantical arguement about how fake the video was......


:D
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
I just hope we don't get into a semantical arguement about how fake the video was......
Click to expand...
Oh, we crossed that bridge a long time ago. :rolleyes:

Whatever it is, it'll be better than Billy Boy's attempted media hijacking on Tuesday.
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
I just hope we don't get into a semantical arguement about how fake the video was......


:D
Click to expand...
can we get into a semantic argument about your "semantical arguement?"...:D

j/k...
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
I said in the other posts that it HAD to be a fake basically because of the screen.

Anyway, it was a pretty dam convincing picture in the first place.

I just hope we don't get into a semantical arguement about how fake the video was......


:D
Click to expand...

I was thinking it was real because of the screen, lol. Either way, this video has had me thinking and though it would be very easy to fake, I'm still not convinced. There was no explanation for the moire effect on the LCD and the glow through the label wasn't clearly explained. And also, the accurate photographic bloom effect around the corners of the white bars wasn't even touched nor even presented in the recreation of the picture in the video.

Though I'm leaning more and more towards the original photo being a fake, there is still part of me that thinks that it might be real. Either way, we will find out on the 28th or the 1st, lol.
 
Although I am just about 100% sure the video does not depict the actual making of the photo (for a number of reasons, pretty much all of which have been mentioned previously; the chinese writing is different, the sticker is in a slightly different place, the lack of a 7, the lack of [of not sure what you call it] LCD distortion... etc), I am still undecided on whether or not it was created by the same person.

The reason I am not 100% sure it is the same person is the inconsistencies with the chinese writing (as several others have pointed out) as well as certain aspects, such as those previously mentioned.

What makes it very difficult for me to believe it was an entirely different person however, and I'm not sure why this hasn't been pointed out previously, is that the video of the editing of the photo depicts a greater area than the final photo.

Identical wrinkles are evident in the shots below, yet you can see past the bounds of the image released on flickr, to the left and right. I would imagine it is theoretically possible to fake this greater area, but I think it would be very difficult and more importantly, unnecessary. Thus, the creator of the video at least has access to an original photo, or they created it themselves.

picture13xw.png

picture23ip.png


Compared with:
103357149_ebe5a6a8c7.jpg


Tell me if I am wrong.
 
Aside from all the CSI stuff going on, Here is an important question:

If this guy that made the video is the same as the one who did the
photo, then why would he release that video NOW?

If I was the one who did it, I would at least wait for the Tuesday event and
then release the video afterwards!!
I think the guy who did the video is not the same one who did the photo
(assuming it is fake).
 
as far as I can see. The two chinese charators are written by same person.
2 evidences.
a. the 2 charators show in early of that video wrote differently from original photo. But I felt that those wrote from same person.
b. 2 charators appears in the very last of video are exactly same from orginal photo. It seems to me the guy make the video must the owner of the orginal photo.

but it sucks, he has spent very effort to trick most of us. I felt tricked and used. fxxk him.
 
dylan.mc said:
The reason I am not 100% sure it is the same person is the inconsistencies with the chinese writing (as several others have pointed out) as well as certain aspects, such as those previously mentioned.
Click to expand...
The charator appear in early part of video written in proper chinese form. As far as I know, most of english speaking guy cann't write that good in first a few attemp. He must have had certain amount of experience of written chinese chartors.
 
I have to admit I'm really lost.

The original was a fake, amd the video of the picture was real??? Or the original was real and video was fake, but the new video shows the original to be real , the video to be fake and the "fakeness" of the 1st video is proved by the 2nd - real video...I mean "fakeNess" of the fake video....

Never mind - I think I CAN wait until Tuesday:D :D :D
 
The now famed "faker"'s motives are quit evident.

He has garnered the almost bizarre attention of practically the whole Mac community..

As for the video ?

He made it in response to a MacRumors member's comment on the fake photo.
Note how in the movie he uses the zoom back and forth effect on this page..

[edit] you're doin a great job *********.Keep it up;) [/edit]
 

Attachments

  • fakexposed10.png
    fakexposed10.png
    54.4 KB · Views: 216
Peace said:
The now famed "faker"'s motives are quit evident.

He has garnered the almost bizarre attention of practically the whole Mac community..

As for the video ?

He made it in response to a MacRumors member's comment on the fake photo.
Note how in the movie he uses the zoom back and forth effect on this page..
Click to expand...

But why go to all the trouble and remain anonymous? It does not make sense...
 
IMHO this has gotten to much attention than what its worth....who cares if you know whats going to be introduced by apple 2 days b4 it does. If it is the 'fun' product then yippee if it isnt...well apples bound to make something equally as awesome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back