Artsy Omni
Smashified Creator
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,368
- NNID
- artsyomni
I've been looking at the screenshots and doing a bit of research based on what I know about graphic design and photography. Here are my findings.
The most telling image is this one:
If we look at the, we can see some pixelation. Somebody who's decent at creating hoaxes knows that some screen aliasing, or "moire" as it's sometimes called, makes for a convincing image, as does pixelation when up close.
The nice thing about anti-aliasing on raster images is that it's easy to count to columns of pixels to deduce facts about the image. In this case, I found that the circle portion of the metroid icon is 17px in diameter, and the circle surrounding the franchise icon is 34-35px (give or take)
One thing I know about producing graphics for video games is that most graphics are raster (made of pixels). When you design for a specific device with a specific resolution, you create menu art so that the pixels of the art match perfectly with the pixels of the screen, so that no resampling is taking place, and you get as sharp an image as possible.
Knowing that this game is in 720p or 1080p, we can deduce whether or not this dimension makes sense in the context of a resolution that large. Below is an image with a reproduced metroid icon using the dimensions stipulated in the above image.
Compositing the other screenshots to match the size of the pixel-perfect metroid icon, we can see that even with some margin of error, the supposed character select screen doesn't fill a 720p resolution, and doesn't even come close to filling a 1080p resolution.
The only way the icon could be that small and still have the content fill the screen is if the graphic of the metroid icon is being UPscaled for the menu, and that would be a terribly sloppy thing coming from a seasoned video game developer. It's one thing to upscale rendered 3D models, but it's another thing to create art for a menu that has to be upscaled. There's no reason for that.
Furthermore, when you take a picture that's close enough to the screen that you can see pixels, you SHOULD see some sub-pixel separation (the red green and blue elements of a pixel have a slight gap between them that is typically indiscernible at a distance, but very apparent up close.
Not only that, but with most camera lenses, taking a picture that close and at that angle would result in some blurriness somewhere in the image, because the depth of field can't possibly be that large. Plus, content that is that far off center in the shot is NEVER auto-focused on, so why the heck is that metroid icon that sharp in the first place? We shouldn't be able to see pixelation that easily without some blurriness.
AND EVEN STILL, what kinda screen are we looking at that the colors don't distort at such a sharp angle? Is the guy using a magic camera??
I took the liberty of taking a photo of that metroid icon at actual resolution (pixels of the image match the pixels of the screen) at a similar angle with some elements around it to replicate the context. here's what it looks like:
I used my iPhone to take the photo. I also took some photos with my DSLR, but I couldn't even get the dang thing in focus being that close to the subject. What are the chances the guy had a macro lens with him? Pretty slim.
This is a photo of an IPS panel, which has very good color fidelity at sharp angles, and even this screen doesn't keep colors as well in a photo. You have to stage a photograph REALLY well to keep screen artifacts to a minimum, and what are the chances a photographer got the chance to do that? As you can see, the subpixel separations are very apparent, which is not the case in the "leak."
Also.... the perspective of these images doesn't really make that much sense, which is what happens when you use a free transform in Photoshop to produce the perspective. Photoshop distortion isn't the same as camera lens distortion, which produces fisheye. There is little to no fisheye on these images, and the only way that would come from a camera is if the photographer zoomed in from a distance, rather than taking the picture up close. What are the chances of the images being this crisp and clear under those circumstances??
Hopefully if you weren't sure before, you can be sure now. These images just SCREAM "fake." I give the guy props for thinking of putting the moire and trying to use the multiple angles thing to pass it off as real, but he can't fool me.
The most telling image is this one:
If we look at the, we can see some pixelation. Somebody who's decent at creating hoaxes knows that some screen aliasing, or "moire" as it's sometimes called, makes for a convincing image, as does pixelation when up close.
The nice thing about anti-aliasing on raster images is that it's easy to count to columns of pixels to deduce facts about the image. In this case, I found that the circle portion of the metroid icon is 17px in diameter, and the circle surrounding the franchise icon is 34-35px (give or take)
One thing I know about producing graphics for video games is that most graphics are raster (made of pixels). When you design for a specific device with a specific resolution, you create menu art so that the pixels of the art match perfectly with the pixels of the screen, so that no resampling is taking place, and you get as sharp an image as possible.
Knowing that this game is in 720p or 1080p, we can deduce whether or not this dimension makes sense in the context of a resolution that large. Below is an image with a reproduced metroid icon using the dimensions stipulated in the above image.
Compositing the other screenshots to match the size of the pixel-perfect metroid icon, we can see that even with some margin of error, the supposed character select screen doesn't fill a 720p resolution, and doesn't even come close to filling a 1080p resolution.
The only way the icon could be that small and still have the content fill the screen is if the graphic of the metroid icon is being UPscaled for the menu, and that would be a terribly sloppy thing coming from a seasoned video game developer. It's one thing to upscale rendered 3D models, but it's another thing to create art for a menu that has to be upscaled. There's no reason for that.
Furthermore, when you take a picture that's close enough to the screen that you can see pixels, you SHOULD see some sub-pixel separation (the red green and blue elements of a pixel have a slight gap between them that is typically indiscernible at a distance, but very apparent up close.
Not only that, but with most camera lenses, taking a picture that close and at that angle would result in some blurriness somewhere in the image, because the depth of field can't possibly be that large. Plus, content that is that far off center in the shot is NEVER auto-focused on, so why the heck is that metroid icon that sharp in the first place? We shouldn't be able to see pixelation that easily without some blurriness.
AND EVEN STILL, what kinda screen are we looking at that the colors don't distort at such a sharp angle? Is the guy using a magic camera??
I took the liberty of taking a photo of that metroid icon at actual resolution (pixels of the image match the pixels of the screen) at a similar angle with some elements around it to replicate the context. here's what it looks like:
I used my iPhone to take the photo. I also took some photos with my DSLR, but I couldn't even get the dang thing in focus being that close to the subject. What are the chances the guy had a macro lens with him? Pretty slim.
This is a photo of an IPS panel, which has very good color fidelity at sharp angles, and even this screen doesn't keep colors as well in a photo. You have to stage a photograph REALLY well to keep screen artifacts to a minimum, and what are the chances a photographer got the chance to do that? As you can see, the subpixel separations are very apparent, which is not the case in the "leak."
Also.... the perspective of these images doesn't really make that much sense, which is what happens when you use a free transform in Photoshop to produce the perspective. Photoshop distortion isn't the same as camera lens distortion, which produces fisheye. There is little to no fisheye on these images, and the only way that would come from a camera is if the photographer zoomed in from a distance, rather than taking the picture up close. What are the chances of the images being this crisp and clear under those circumstances??
Hopefully if you weren't sure before, you can be sure now. These images just SCREAM "fake." I give the guy props for thinking of putting the moire and trying to use the multiple angles thing to pass it off as real, but he can't fool me.
Last edited:
