PDA

View Full Version : You gotta kidding me!! Awesome Morgan Freeman portait painted on Ipad!



prometheus
12-04-2013, 11:19 PM
well..I would like to see how this guy had the reference image in order to do this, you could think this is a fake somehow, if not..utterly impressive.
http://mashable.com/2013/12/02/morgan-freeman-ipad-fingerpaint/#!

Reverse deletion of a filter painted image bit by bit to reveal the real photage?..probably.



Michael

prometheus
12-04-2013, 11:26 PM
yeah..I didnīt notice the compare image in the middle of the page, and yes...Im quite certain itīs just a trick, painting in poors and highlights with exactly the same pattern in the same proportions and scale...well, no master can do that....unless started a few decades ago.

Michael

erikals
12-04-2013, 11:58 PM
this is real fingerpaint, i'm quite sure of it.

having worked a lot with photograph retouching in the past... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

damn impressive! http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/king.gif

Danner
12-05-2013, 01:19 AM
http://vimeo.com/81073666

What this basically proves is that the last pass is just erasing your own drawing. The technique is not that hard but it takes time. Turn on brush stroke recording, load a background photo, pick colors from it and draw on a layer on top of it and at the very last pass paint with the background image.

erikals
12-05-2013, 01:34 AM
yes, it'd be cool to see if this actually was real or not http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

jwiede
12-05-2013, 03:05 AM
Guys, you might want to look into the guy responsible's work a bit more, he's quite well known for it, and this isnt the first celebrity he's painted this way. If it were fake somehow, I'm pretty sure he would have been caught and branded a hoax by now.

Keep in mind the real work took over 200 hours, apparently. I definitely believe working in small sections, an experienced painter could effectively replicate a photograph that way, and at that level of detail, without "cheating" (iow, laying down pixels from the original photo image somehow).

prometheus
12-05-2013, 04:50 AM
Guys, you might want to look into the guy responsible's work a bit more, he's quite well known for it, and this isnt the first celebrity he's painted this way. If it were fake somehow, I'm pretty sure he would have been caught and branded a hoax by now.

Keep in mind the real work took over 200 hours, apparently. I definitely believe working in small sections, an experienced painter could effectively replicate a photograph that way, and at that level of detail, without "cheating" (iow, laying down pixels from the original photo image somehow).

I am...uhmm was quite decent in painting decent stuff...years ago, so I am not unfamiliar with painting,
Im sorry, but I donīt believe the facts of it taking that time, I donīt believe the skills either.

I was first somewhat stunned, but that was before I saw the overlaying photo and the reveal of the so called painting, for that accuracy of getting identical spots,poors in the same shape,same size,same color, same highlight..and the same with the hair on the beard..I would say almost impossible, keep in mind that you could measure wrinkle positions, scale and relation to other spots and wrinkles and the result would be the same as the photo, no way that is done by eyesight, and if he in such case would need to measure it, I donīt think months would do it.

I got a little suspicious when the brushes over highlights are brush revelead in one go, not painted spot pixel by pixel, this indicates very well that it is an eraser reveal of photoback or reconstructed strokes.

If no one has seen this guy paint it and also being unbiased towards him, then no one can catch him and brand him as hoax, so I would say it can be a hoax somehow.
if this guy is quite well known for it? well... I would believe he indeed is a skilled painter and well known for other look alikes, but that doesnīt give proof this being real.
The proportions between everything in detail in relation to the photo is just too exact..almost a perfect match if layered on top of each other.


Michael

safetyman
12-05-2013, 04:52 AM
Maybe he uses Tim's Vermeer technique. :)

gerry_g
12-05-2013, 06:44 AM
What struck me was the ear ring it looked to real and well formed too early on with reflections that were way too real-world, have you seen this french dude pick it to pieces since – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxAzzO8arHs#t=170

erikals
12-05-2013, 06:50 AM
bah,... i wished it was real... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/cursin.gif

prometheus
12-05-2013, 07:07 AM
What struck me was the ear ring it looked to real and well formed too early on with reflections that were way too real-world, have you seen this french dude pick it to pieces since – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxAzzO8arHs#t=170

Canīt follow that french unfortunatly, I was about to check the images in photoshop overlayed to demonstrate it, but it was so obvious to me and when my gut instinct says..if it looks like morgan freeman, and if it looks like another morgan freeman...it probably is just the one and only morgan freeman... being messed with, Iīm too tired to check it in photoshop right now.
I love the dude by the way...That way you know:)

I donīt understand though...why the painter guy picked too saturated colors and changed the contrast? even I could pick better colors than that:)...but the rest in detail I could not, but then again.. changing a little saturation or shadowing, that helps sell the shot as to have been painted, and not an exact photo replica.

Maybe some live tracing in illustrator to match up against each other... could be fun?

Michael

Thomas Leitner
12-05-2013, 12:45 PM
Apart from whether itīs real or faked:
What is it good for?
What is the sense of spending 200 hours for something that could be done in minutes (ok, the photographer may have needed a little more time)?
If it were real (what I donīt belive), it would be neither creativity nor art, it would be pure technique and completely unnecessary.

ciao
Thomas

jwiede
12-05-2013, 01:25 PM
Artistic forgers have been dutifully replicating masters' works for centuries so closely that even with modern photo-forensic techniques it can still be quite difficult to distinguish forgeries from the original paintings, down to individual brush strokes, etc. The forgeries are such precise matches to the point where authenticators have to use techniques like spectrographic analysis of the pigments to distinguish them (despite already having very-high-res photos of the originals).

PixelDust
12-05-2013, 01:46 PM
I think some people enjoy the process of painting something that detailed just to see how close to real they can make it look. As for art, there is the Photorealism movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism) and the Hyperrealism movement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_(visual_arts))

prometheus
12-05-2013, 09:42 PM
Artistic forgers have been dutifully replicating masters' works for centuries so closely that even with modern photo-forensic techniques it can still be quite difficult to distinguish forgeries from the original paintings, down to individual brush strokes, etc. The forgeries are such precise matches to the point where authenticators have to use techniques like spectrographic analysis of the pigments to distinguish them (despite already having very-high-res photos of the originals).

Isnīt that a little missleading? doesnīt mean they are pure skilled to paint it by reference, rather more that they faked it with projection techniques i would say.

when did a painting show up and could be analyzed next to an equal look a like painting? and not only down to brush strokes, we are talkin about pixel level accuracy in every dimension.
What Ivé heard from such analyzes, it is hard to tell the painting is real due to the likeness in brush strokes, colors, paint colors, pigments,canvas, etc.

But an analyzis of two equal looking images or paintings are completly different ...and nothing Ivé heard of ever taking place, so I think theres a difference between analyzing
faked masters VS the analysis of two images and their likeness.

I would surely like to see a link to such comparable master/fake forensic analysis.

To think about..if the faked master replicas were so hard to spot as fakes, doesnīt that also mean that they could have used special techniques to paint exactly
the same propertions colors etc brush strokes, that it canīt be done on free hand and eye proximation only, besides....how could brush strokes in oil give exactly the same
appaerance since oil would certainly not apply the same way twice, or exactly the same as an original, same goes for fibers in a brush, they canīt follow the same path.

If the fakers were to project the original painting on to a canvas and paint after that, then we are back to fakes similar to revealing a photo behind a digital painting...that wouldnīt be as exact as this sample is though, but the principle behind it is faking it rather than reference paint it from pure eye approximation.

The sun isnīt going down ..even though everyone says that...Thatīs an illusion, so uncover the veil of deception and youīll see it is the earth rotating.:)

Michael

prometheus
12-05-2013, 09:58 PM
Apart from whether itīs real or faked:
What is it good for?
What is the sense of spending 200 hours for something that could be done in minutes (ok, the photographer may have needed a little more time)?
If it were real (what I donīt belive), it would be neither creativity nor art, it would be pure technique and completely unnecessary.

ciao
Thomas


Probably nonsense of stating it took 200 hours, it fills a purpose to give proof of the painting actually being truly made
as it is stated..but there are some comments on the article about the paint application being so cool, so it looks like a market scam.

prometheus
12-05-2013, 10:08 PM
Another thing, If I were to go in the state of extreme focus an try to paint it by reference, I can tell that I could actually pick some things up better in terms of applying more accurate contrast,sharpness in some parts if I were to paint, the hardest part is to paint with micron exactness, even though this so called painting is extremly look alike and exact, some spots are blurred out, and that is what is generally seen in the image, apart from different contrast and saturation, all those elements are very typical to show up overall if you apply a filter or do a genera adjustment layer ..all that for giving it a slight different look ..as to show that it in fact was painted.

prometheus
12-05-2013, 10:28 PM
I could probably gather a lot of analyze descriptions on the images, but it really is of no point to spend time doing it when it already feels 99,999999999999 certainty of a fake, if not more:)

1. the picture has many elements and 1x1 pixels being on the exact
same place..but also shows others bein displaced or blurred.
how come the painter can by eye referencing paint exactly in pixel
accuracy in many places, but in others missing it completly?

2. a brush with certain noise or brush attributes, cant fill
in a single pixel at the exact spot as the original by pure luck.

3. certain pixels are reversed, some skin tone areas where a cluster
of 4 pixels are clustered in a square, that analyse shows that the
original area has 1 bright pixel,2 dark pixel, one bright, one dark
comparing the overlayed exact matching pixels on the so called painted one that shows 1 dark pixel, one
bright pixel and one dark pixel..to conclude... a set of reversed pixels, why would you miss or paint in reversed pixels when some others are so exact?

djwaterman
12-05-2013, 11:58 PM
I watched it with the pre-conceived notion it was fake because of what has been said, but it became evident that it was genuine. It is it's not a fake, as in someone doing a half painting and then painting over with an erase brush to reveal the original photo underneath, it is a real step by step digital painting and it would be actually really difficult to fake this fake. It annoys me that someone spends a lot of time doing this with real craftsmanship and studious dedication and the first thing people want to do is call him a fake. Notice how fast it all is at the beginning laying down the base colors, and how the last part of filling in all the tiny details is what is taking the longest, that's exactly how anything creative usually is.

prometheus
12-06-2013, 12:49 AM
I watched it with the pre-conceived notion it was fake because of what has been said, but it became evident that it was genuine. It is it's not a fake, as in someone doing a half painting and then painting over with an erase brush to reveal the original photo underneath, it is a real step by step digital painting and it would be actually really difficult to fake this fake. It annoys me that someone spends a lot of time doing this with real craftsmanship and studious dedication and the first thing people want to do is call him a fake. Notice how fast it all is at the beginning laying down the base colors, and how the last part of filling in all the tiny details is what is taking the longest, that's exactly how anything creative usually is.

study my comments above and put the images in photoshop and zoom in very closely, compare pixel matched highlights of poors wrinkles etc..groups of pixels are exactly the same but with
reverted pixels etc....as I told you...this guy has painted extremly exact pixel matching, and then on other parts itīs not soo good, to the point that i could do it better.

check how the part when he is brushing in hightlights and poors on the nose, do you believe the pixels by pure coincedence happened to land on exactly the same pixels as the original photo? and that with brush strokes, he didnīt even pixel pushed it in pixel by pixel.

whatīs the most likely here, this being a reversed reveal of several effect constructed layers, or painted with such exactness that it couldnīt have been done without actually having
the layer in a background layer then pixel by pixel paint over or copy it, I mean come on, look at the dimensions and proportions and see how much most of it matches..exactly, and that by eye referencing it, try follow a backround picture with exactness on a background layer and see if you could do this.

I started this thread...without having seen the following compare image below on the site, thus I was first impressed by the image itself, not when I noticed the extreme match to the photo though.
You should load the two images in back and front layer and compare, you could draw lines between poor highlights of 1 pixels all around the face and find exact lenght between those two spots, and also cross referencing lines from those spots to a multitude of other spot pixel sized parts and fine an exact match in lenght as well.
Keep in mind that there a lots of places it also donīt match, and some areas are so different that I could even do it better, but itīs all those parts that are
so exactly matched and so many of them together with the overall exact shape that tells me, it has been modified to be not too exact.

Even the background areas has very blurred parts, seemingly derived from the sharper photo original, where in the photo it is some sharper artifacts, I donīt think that would be a focus for an artist to depict.

A case of approaching it from the point of view based on the principle of ockhams razor maybe would be most likely here.
Where is the evidence of it being real? what do you base that on?

Michael

prometheus
12-06-2013, 01:38 AM
I watched it with the pre-conceived notion it was fake because of what has been said, but it became evident that it was genuine. It is it's not a fake, as in someone doing a half painting and then painting over with an erase brush to reveal the original photo underneath, it is a real step by step digital painting and it would be actually really difficult to fake this fake. It annoys me that someone spends a lot of time doing this with real craftsmanship and studious dedication and the first thing people want to do is call him a fake. Notice how fast it all is at the beginning laying down the base colors, and how the last part of filling in all the tiny details is what is taking the longest, that's exactly how anything creative usually is.


"it is a real step by step digital painting and it would be actually really difficult to fake this fake"

-You are only assuming this, you donīt know this for sure.
and I would state the other side of it, it would be far more easier to fake this, than to recreate such exact match on the parts, pixel by pixel.

"It annoys me that someone spends a lot of time doing this with real craftsmanship and studious dedication and the first thing people want to do is call him a fake"


Again...why would you be annoyed, since you canīt give proof of this being real?


"Notice how fast it all is at the beginning laying down the base colors, and how the last part of filling in all the tiny details is what is taking the longest, that's exactly how anything creative usually is."

the part of layers in the beginning being fast in the clip, well...no point in showcasing the base layers being drawn in slow speed, the interesting partīs are always in the details, thus slowing down the clip where details are added makes sense, and I donīt see why that would be a proof of it being real?

prometheus
12-06-2013, 01:48 AM
Taking a look at the other vids of portraits, well we donīt see the comparable photoīs, and we donīt see the same level of photo realism, we can also see eyes, brows being revealed in the same second with pupils and highlights of the pupils on both eyes being revealed at the exact same time, how one goes about to paint that in within a single stroke must be considered impossible as opposed to the
more likeness of layers being revealed through macrorecordings.

JonW
12-06-2013, 03:19 AM
I'm still not going to buy an ipad!

djwaterman
12-06-2013, 04:28 AM
I did as you suggested and got a large res from the photographers website and the largest res version I could find from the artists website and took both into Pshop. Overlaying both and attempting to match scale, more or less exact match but I'm not a computer (doesn't Pshop have an automated function for this?). Anyway, Kyles painting is very close in proportions overall, and using a difference filter provided areas here and there that seemed very well matched, but you'd expect that from someone closely observing the original photo anyway. The fine details, the highlights in the skin, it all had the hand drawn look whereas the photo just looks like what it is. I certainly don't find it unlikely that you could match pixel placement since you can zoom in with that app, and he uses a pen for the fine details not his finger. Nothing really matches or locks into place unless you move the image around for this or that section, so the imperfectness is in evidence, flicking back and forth between the two images you see different parts of the face bulge and pop, various sections are on the wrong angle slightly, like the lower lip or his collar, so it's not a duplicate even if it is a fake. There is also a lot of talk on the internet about it being fake so it's not just here, but none of the explanations of how he "faked" it sound remotely credible to me, some of them are just silly (not your's Prometheus). I could be wrong and he will come out soon and explain how he fooled us all, but at this stage I believe it is what it says it is.

prometheus
12-06-2013, 11:57 AM
I did as you suggested and got a large res from the photographers website and the largest res version I could find from the artists website and took both into Pshop. Overlaying both and attempting to match scale, more or less exact match but I'm not a computer (doesn't Pshop have an automated function for this?). Anyway, Kyles painting is very close in proportions overall, and using a difference filter provided areas here and there that seemed very well matched, but you'd expect that from someone closely observing the original photo anyway. The fine details, the highlights in the skin, it all had the hand drawn look whereas the photo just looks like what it is. I certainly don't find it unlikely that you could match pixel placement since you can zoom in with that app, and he uses a pen for the fine details not his finger. Nothing really matches or locks into place unless you move the image around for this or that section, so the imperfectness is in evidence, flicking back and forth between the two images you see different parts of the face bulge and pop, various sections are on the wrong angle slightly, like the lower lip or his collar, so it's not a duplicate even if it is a fake. There is also a lot of talk on the internet about it being fake so it's not just here, but none of the explanations of how he "faked" it sound remotely credible to me, some of them are just silly (not your's Prometheus). I could be wrong and he will come out soon and explain how he fooled us all, but at this stage I believe it is what it says it is.

Thereīs absolutly no reason for him to come out and say it is faked and he fooled everyone, doesnīt serve his purpose from the beginning and doesnīt serve him credit in the end...from his point of view.

Imperfections and differences are there in the details, but that isnīt evidence of it Not being manipulated, the evidence canīt be the imperfections..rather the perfected 1 pixel by 1 pixel all over the place, you can run photoshop filters/stylize, paint dub, pallette etc, change lighting, etc and maybe use liqufy to distort parts of the image so the beard single strands look slightly different, and simply paint dub will sort of distort all the dark spots on the face to look slightly off, very similar to the so called painted image.

As I mentioned..there are tons of 1 pixel by 1 pixel highlight pixels, that are a perfect match, or just changed in intensity, if you put all those markers in an isolated sheet, and measure the alignment against each and every other 1 by 1 pixel spots, they are equally matching against each other in distance and not just in relation between two pixels, 1 pixel can be found to match a huge amount of cross referencing 1 by 1 pixels.

As I mentioned before..there are many areas of exactly the same pixel grouping(4 pixels grouped in area as I mentioned..1 dark gets bright, and the next is bright and it get s dark in the painted one, reverted in contrast..which I think indicates a filter applied, how could he painted that? and further more...why would he do that.

now put a photo to the left of your computer, focus on 1 pixel area...move your eye to the computer screen, find that pixel spot and place it exactly there with exact match against all other spots...I would say rather impossible, and hard even if you have the image in a layer background and the overlaying layer semitransparent and then close the background original to put that pixel in, if you keep the foreground layer with semitransparence you can match it spot on..but then youre on the road to perfect faking it anyway.

Im am quite convinced that you just canīt put in pixel level accuracy in so many areas with eye aproximation (not even with photographic memory)and match every other pixel in distance and alignment and even in size, note... this isnīt the case all over
the image as Ivé said, but you have to be aware of what makes a good fake, you canīt sell a used second world war tank looking completly brand new without artifacts...and you donīt simply copy an image and say it is painted if you have done a fake, the fake needs manipulation and difference and that can be done quite easy with distortion filters..but yet containing large areas not affected that much.

You could try this...put two computers next to each other with black screens, put two white pixels somewhere in the screen on one computer....go take a break..come back and look at that screen..and then try to put the two pixels exactly at the same place on the second computer, unless knowing the exact horizontal and vertical location by counting, or maybe put the two pixels exactly in the first row after or beneath...it would be almost impossible to match.
Now imagine many many more spots in only pixel size..and try to replicate that, also imagine you donīt have that clear distinction between black and white to seperate it, you got colors, contrasts etc....no way.

Also be aware of that you can se it is brushed in with the highlights on skin poors, you you honestly believe there is a magic brush containing just those exact pixels able to match some original photo that the brush canīt understand ...since brushes are premade...he would have to put in pixel by pixel to match those skin poors..and you canīt see him applying that in the timelapse of the clip.

only god can be perfect, that is why persian carpets are weaved not so perfect:) then again..I donīt believe in god, so this statement has no sense other than confirming
that I am not perfect in my descriptions:) or reasoning...but donīt blame me thatīs gods fault, creating me imperfect:)

Michael

prometheus
12-06-2013, 12:07 PM
By the way, not sure how exact match in size the images you took from different sites are, you should probably compare the two images from the page showcasing the timelapse painting, the two gif images to get the exact sizes.

A closer look at what you say, he can match pixel perfect match by zooming? that only tells he can get very close in and work in detail..that doesnīt count in for
how he can align and get the position exactly at the right pixel on the screen...he need to measure alignment and position somehow between a huge amount of reference points.

Then you are wrong about "nothing really matches unless moving the image around" as I think ..you are not comparing right images agains each other, you had issues
scaling it and wonder if photoshop automates it? imaging this guy painting pixel perfect...and you should use the two gif images at the same size..then you wonīt be comparing different scaled images for your analysis..
there are loads of places the pixels matches perfectly.

Michael

Otterman
12-10-2013, 07:46 AM
common guys I cant believe you are even questioning this. Its a cheap trick to dube those who don't appreciate what us artists do and what is involved in getting such realism. It only serves to promote this ipad app, nothing else. In doing so it cheapens our industry and perception of our abilities.

Besides if it's too good to be true...then it probabley is....yadda yadda yadda. If anything it's just a nice montage of an illustration, fudged together in after effects using the the real photograph. The only real fall down is that they didn't make it believeable by putting imperfections or slight differences. Besides if you see this guys portfolio theres work there that doesn't even come close to photographic which is a real eye opener to those believers out there.

erikals
12-10-2013, 08:14 AM
guess we gotta rely on Dru Blair instead...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dru+blair

prometheus
12-10-2013, 08:21 AM
common guys I cant believe you are even questioning this. Its a cheap trick to dube those who don't appreciate what us artists do and what is involved in getting such realism. It only serves to promote this ipad app, nothing else. In doing so it cheapens our industry and perception of our abilities.

Besides if it's too good to be true...then it probabley is....yadda yadda yadda. If anything it's just a nice montage of an illustration, fudged together in after effects using the the real photograph. The only real fall down is that they didn't make it believeable by putting imperfections or slight differences. Besides if you see this guys portfolio theres work there that doesn't even come close to photographic which is a real eye opener to those believers out there.

Some beg to differ in almost all areas in life, thatīs the way of life...
Lets talk about the moon travel....Now...did it happen ? :)

Itīs good things are questioned, even something that might seem rock solid for others, if helps define how we think about what is evident before us and whatīs the truth of today..until the morning comes when the truth might look different, the eyes are older so you donīt see the world with the same eyes twice.

Michael

erikals
12-10-2013, 08:43 AM
i really liked this tutorial, just tweak it a bit like shown to make it slightly better >
...follow the link in the video...

fun stuff...! \:]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCBQ46FncVU

djwaterman
12-10-2013, 09:00 AM
In all those videos people have made to show how to fake this, it just looks super fake, it just looks exactly like you'd expect it to using that technique. The original doesn't have that look, the only explanation that makes sense really is that the guy did it like he said he did it. And why would every one of his portfolio pieces have to be of similar quality, some subjects don't require it, the portrait he chose to copy was an intense warts and all portrait and required a different approach, also he is probably like most of us, building his skill level on this device with each drawing. Anyway, he can take comfort in that so many people think he faked it.

safetyman
12-11-2013, 05:52 AM
If it's legit, I'd be interested to know why he chose to duplicate a digitized photo found easily on the web (and in hi-res). And if it's not fake, why copy it pixel-for-pixel? Why not add you're own touch to it? Seems like a waste of "200 hours" to me.

prometheus
12-11-2013, 07:31 AM
If it's legit, I'd be interested to know why he chose to duplicate a digitized photo found easily on the web (and in hi-res). And if it's not fake, why copy it pixel-for-pixel? Why not add you're own touch to it? Seems like a waste of "200 hours" to me.

Your question feels like a contradiction.
why would anyone copy it pixel by pixel? your assuming that from the basis of it not being fake which is pointless....and the conclusion of 200 hours wasted?

Michael

gristle
12-11-2013, 05:14 PM
I find this image quite uninteresting. As mentioned by safteyman, why not add your own touch or interpretation to it? That would push the work into the realm of art, rather than a protracted exercise in creating a facsimile of the photo. I guess then people would not be so blown away by someone fingerpainting... a different audience (seeing as it is a marketing exercise)

prometheus
12-11-2013, 11:57 PM
I find this image quite uninteresting. As mentioned by safteyman, why not add your own touch or interpretation to it? That would push the work into the realm of art, rather than a protracted exercise in creating a facsimile of the photo. I guess then people would not be so blown away by someone fingerpainting... a different audience (seeing as it is a marketing exercise)

Again..why questioning why he painted it so real without giving some
own artistic touch?

Isnīt that upon the basis that he indeed made a real painting without faking it?
And if not upon such assumption, isnīt that anyway really validating/confirming what
many of us state here...namely it is only a fake technique and not
a true eye by referenced painting...thus no need to wrestle with the question on why on earth he painted it so real.

Michael

gristle
12-12-2013, 02:00 AM
Why so real? It's fairly obvious that this is a part of a marketing campaign to sell a program and they must have decided that their target market would go for such an image. That and the 6pm new broadcasters :) Frankly I find it boring that people ooze over such things, along with people spending weeks making hyper realistic images in MS paint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should! Whether it is fake or not is