Video: Casio's composite moving image trick -- proof that the moon landings were faked

We can't blame you if you were scratching your collective heads over Casio's slightly silly Dynamic Photo technology demonstrated at today's Casio press event. Click through to see this little girl walk across the moonscape to shake hands with Neil Armstrong -- all processed on Casio's new EX-FS10.

The setup

Now let's drop her into a card.

We knew the moon landing was faked!

[Brady @ Jan 7th 2009 4:14PM]

Doesn't the weatherman (or woman) do this on tv everyday?

[000000 @ Jan 7th 2009 4:17PM]

Haha yeah greenscreen. But this could be cool I guess. Why not I say?

[Martin @ Jan 10th 2009 11:43PM]

ya and apple's photobooth program has been able to do it with any non moving back ground even if its 3d and has color changes for years.

[you @ Jan 7th 2009 4:13PM]

this can only be summarized as one word.


WTF.

[Ghen @ Jan 7th 2009 4:18PM]

pronounced

whadafuuuhhhh

[becu55 @ Jan 7th 2009 4:25PM]

I think he meant "what the f***", not "waterfall"

[BeniRose @ Jan 7th 2009 4:41PM]

Happy Wedding?!?!????

[Prasand J. @ Jan 7th 2009 4:43PM]

@wtf ... that's what I thought about her smile. That was kinda creepy.

[Evan @ Jan 7th 2009 4:59PM]

I concur. WTF?!?

[Vincent @ Jan 7th 2009 7:12PM]

haha more like wtf is that little girl doing to Neil... looks like he enjoyed that

[OSnix*-geek @ Jan 7th 2009 4:17PM]

so we are talking, green screen chroma keying built-in to the camera, or with some stupid piece of software that they are including with the camera?

[Ben @ Jan 7th 2009 4:17PM]

Very Underwhelming

[oGMo @ Jan 7th 2009 4:16PM]

No shadow = FAIL. How is this much different from blues/greenscreen stuff that's been done for decades? It'd be more impressive if they'd extracted stuff from random videos with real background.

[Douglas @ Jan 8th 2009 12:22AM]

Exactly! No shadow.. but no shadow on the flag either? What's with that?

[loocas @ Jan 7th 2009 5:24PM]

The difference is, this is crap and it's aimed at pubes with tons of time on their hands and these new cameras.

[cloud858rk @ Jan 7th 2009 6:07PM]

Aimed at pubes?!?

[justin @ Jan 7th 2009 4:17PM]

I was expecting some pretty awesome tracking, lighting, shadowing and compositing. This was pretty pathetic.

[Jake Tobak @ Jan 7th 2009 5:01PM]

Her left hand going behind Neil Armstrong's glove was kinda kewl...

[Arkenklo @ Jan 7th 2009 4:20PM]

Why is this cool again? So what, they added a partly transparent video (greenscreen) over a still image? Even I could do that.

[rutsy5 @ Jan 7th 2009 4:22PM]

Prepare to see many "unbelievable!!!" Youtube clips made with this stuff...

[aggrazel @ Jan 7th 2009 4:23PM]

1970 called, it wants its technology back.

[Nadool @ Jan 7th 2009 8:07PM]

2003 called. It wants you to let that joke go. Seriously, it's ok. The time to move on has come and gone.

[telepheedian @ Jan 7th 2009 4:27PM]

I don't think it explains the moon landing as much as it explains this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpcAn_pwcng

[Gary Combs @ Jan 7th 2009 4:28PM]

From what I gather from watching the video, its a moving picture. I.E. The model is moving still. Kinda like imagine a picture like in the Harry Potter movies, where they are moving still. Thats what this is.

[IanR @ Jan 7th 2009 4:33PM]

Wow they have really achieved something here, it both sucks and blows!

[Giroro @ Jan 7th 2009 4:36PM]

That's weird, I usually find out about NASA's technology by watching infomercials.

[Necrotix @ Jan 7th 2009 4:43PM]

Ya I had lingering doubts also until I saw the Mythbusters episode about the moon landing. The clincher? They left a reflective plate with coordinates. Sure enough they got a high powered laser and zoomed in on the plate and got the reflection back...

[Jeff @ Jan 7th 2009 5:07PM]

Somebody else argued that you wouldn't need a manned mission to the moon to leave a reflective plate behind, which is true.

I actually found the rest of that episode a lot more convincing than the "clincher" of the reflective plate. What did it for me was the very first thing they tested, which was actually trying to walk while hooked up to a wire. It didn't look anything like the real footage. The only thing that did was walking in real near zero-G conditions.

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jan 7th 2009 5:09PM]

Besides, if the USA faked it, the Soviets would've gone all out to prove it was faked. Imagine the Cold War propaganda victory that would've been. I still suspect that anti-US subversives are behind a lot of the "moon landing was faked" nonsense.

[Giroro @ Jan 7th 2009 7:02PM]

The real question is, Why didn't the Soviets fake a moon landing once they saw the US actually on the moon.

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jan 7th 2009 9:24PM]

I'll play devil's advocate and say: "they didn't have Hollywood".

[Riley @ Jan 8th 2009 12:43AM]

and strangely enough, it was just on a few hours ago

[bram @ Jan 7th 2009 4:44PM]

Ok, now they can do that.. :)
But could they do that in 1970? :'D

[jbcaro @ Jan 7th 2009 4:49PM]

OMG!!! this is the best thing ever. Who would have thunk it. You can now overlay video on top of a static image. This will take the world by storm. I sure hope that Casio gets a patent on it. They will be forever rich.

[jason @ Jan 7th 2009 4:51PM]

I believe that point of this, is that the lady was NOT taken in video. It was taken from dozens of still photographs and morphed together w/ their software into a smooth video like picture.

[Verythrax @ Jan 7th 2009 4:58PM]

The main point is that is possible to do that with a camera small as a cellphone, no pc required.

[m @ Jan 7th 2009 5:11PM]

i think the main point is that casio and nasa successfully kept this technology secret for 40 years. kudos, boys. kudos.

[Ian @ Jan 7th 2009 10:58PM]

The additional point is that there was no greenscreen. It's very difficult to get that kind of result with no greenscreen AND no lighting. The greenscreen usually has to be very well and EVENLY lit... so I'm impressed.

[Ian @ Jan 7th 2009 11:00PM]

On second thought, Apple already does this with iChat. Anyway, it's still cool.

[David @ Jan 7th 2009 6:02PM]

I agree, that is why Casio has done so poorly lately, they are too busy with hi-tech government work we won't see for another 40 years.

(Just like secret agents had iPhones 20 years before they came out.)

[Good_Bytes @ Jan 7th 2009 6:02PM]

Just by looking at the picture in the article, you can see that their is a problem with the shadow of the girl.

[Gary Combs @ Jan 8th 2009 2:16AM]

So, after thinking about this a little bit, what is really cool is that the camera does everything. Or am I missing something? Cause if the camera could do that on the fly, one would never miss giving their significant other a birthday/anniversary/mother'sday card. Thus saving many many men much much grief and thus that feature is kinda priceless.

Anyway, I'm interested in this camera for its compact size and video capabilities. I don't expect to use 1000 fps though, I prefer better resolution. So if they get the price right and it comes in blue, I'm all for it, hah.