WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

Good cgi or real?

Good cgi or real?

(post is archived)

[–] 7 pts

He needs to watch more Adobe AfterEffects tutorial videos. That transition from 'Berenstain' to 'Berenstein' is just too abrupt to be convincing.

This is just bad CGI effects from an Adobe AfterEffects amateur. I don't know why you think it's "good CGI" OP.

This is why I don't trust any video on any paranormal, cryptozoology or other strange phenomena topics. It's too easy to fake everything these days. I'm going to dismiss this as clickbait garbage.

[–] 2 pts

Because i thought it looked neat?

[–] 1 pt

Another good reason to dismiss cryptoziology out of hand is that sightings and video should have increased exponentially as camera phones increased quality, and market saturation.

Sure, there's plenty we don't know. But we can be confident that Bigfoot is much less believable today, than it was with those phony looking VHS recordings

[–] 1 pt

Good point on the pervasiveness of cameras not yielding more evidence of the existence of cryptids. And to add to that, the few pictures we do get are always of very poor quality and very low resolution in a time when many gigapixel cameras are the norm not the rarity. We still see pictures of Bigfoot that look like they were captured on a 1985 Sears camcorder in ELP mode instead of high resolution HDR mega-pictures. I think this does put the nail in the "Bigfoot is real" coffin.