My X-Files Alien Stiletto

[Drago]

Looks fake to me as well. Regardless if it is or not, I really can't stand people who post things on the internet, and aren't willing to share how they did something.

ESPECIALLY in a DIY, prop forum.

Thank you very much for your intriguing analysis, or shall I say exposé, of my CGI X-Files gimlet! Yes, it looks absolutely fake to you, yet you fail to provide one single rational reason, aside from a "hunch" or your "instinct". A slight wobble (if you can even call it that) which lasts less than half a second isn't really a convincing argument.

You are basically (and unfortunately) doing nothing other than arguing from incredulity, as you not knowing the mechanism of the gimlet "obviously" makes it CGI. Consequently, the next step will probably be to shift the burden of proof onto me and tell me that I have to prove that it is not CGI.

In all honesty, no, not one single pixel of the video is CGI. The only thing that was added was the sound, to match the "pfft" sound from the show. Although I didn't use the original audio, I created my own sound.

You should look up some tutorials on Cinema4D and After Effects regarding motion tracking 3D objects in videos and then come back and tell me that this spike is CGI (lol). For crying out loud, you can even see shadows on the spike itself, and the reflective surface changes based on the angle/light.

I challenge you or anyone else who claims that this video is CGI, to reproduce a small portion of it, using any kind of visual FX software. Shouldn't be a problem, right? In fact, I'd be glad if you could post my video on a visual FX forum such as "Video Copilot" or "CreativeCow" and let them inspect it for CGI. Go for it, please.

In regards to "sharing", I obviously have disclosed details about the mechanism to certain people, for certain reasons, but I will not post details in a public thread for everyone to see. For what it's worth, RPF poster "Terrasolo" owns an almost identical prop, because I helped him create it several months ago. He is very busy, but perhaps when he finds some time in the near future he could post pictures and video of his prop. Other X-Files fans were able to see my prop live and hold it in their own hands.

I have spent countless months, even sleepless nights, pondering, drawing, 3D-Modeling, contacting machinists, and spending tons of money on this. Trial and error, over and over again, until getting satisfying results. If it were any other prop, I'd be happy to disclose most, if not all the details, but not something which has cost me a huge amount of money, and not a prop which is one of if not the most sought after X-Files prop ever. There are tons of threads about this prop here on RPF, even dating back to 2006.

There is nothing in the forum rules which states that I must disclose specific information about a certain prop. This forum is a prop forum, not necessarily a DIY forum per se, as you are presenting it. Therefore it is up to the user who opens a thread to decide whether his/her thread will be a DIY thread with detailed instructions, or not. Mine isn't, for the reasons cited above.

You should also know that actions speak louder than words, and it is very easy to yell "CGI" or "fake" at practically anything. That being said, when you upload your very own fake CGI X-Files stiletto video, please post the link on RPF so that everyone can see it. Thanks in advance.

 

[Triton]

Thank you very much for your intriguing analysis, or shall I say exposé, of my CGI X-Files gimlet! Yes, it looks absolutely fake to you, yet you fail to provide one single rational reason, aside from a "hunch" or your "instinct". A slight wobble (if you can even call it that) which lasts less than half a second isn't really a convincing argument.

You are basically (and unfortunately) doing nothing other than arguing from incredulity, as you not knowing the mechanism of the gimlet "obviously" makes it CGI. Consequently, the next step will probably be to shift the burden of proof onto me and tell me that I have to prove that it is not CGI.

In all honesty, no, not one single pixel of the video is CGI. The only thing that was added was the sound, to match the "pfft" sound from the show. Although I didn't use the original audio, I created my own sound.

You should look up some tutorials on Cinema4D and After Effects regarding motion tracking 3D objects in videos and then come back and tell me that this spike is CGI (lol). For crying out loud, you can even see shadows on the spike itself, and the reflective surface changes based on the angle/light.

I challenge you or anyone else who claims that this video is CGI, to reproduce a small portion of it, using any kind of visual FX software. Shouldn't be a problem, right? In fact, I'd be glad if you could post my video on a visual FX forum such as "Video Copilot" or "CreativeCow" and let them inspect it for CGI. Go for it, please.

In regards to "sharing", I obviously have disclosed details about the mechanism to certain people, for certain reasons, but I will not post details in a public thread for everyone to see. For what it's worth, RPF poster "Terrasolo" owns an almost identical prop, because I helped him create it several months ago. He is very busy, but perhaps when he finds some time in the near future he could post pictures and video of his prop. Other X-Files fans were able to see my prop live and hold it in their own hands.

I have spent countless months, even sleepless nights, pondering, drawing, 3D-Modeling, contacting machinists, and spending tons of money on this. Trial and error, over and over again, until getting satisfying results. If it were any other prop, I'd be happy to disclose most, if not all the details, but not something which has cost me a huge amount of money, and not a prop which is one of if not the most sought after X-Files prop ever. There are tons of threads about this prop here on RPF, even dating back to 2006.

There is nothing in the forum rules which states that I must disclose specific information about a certain prop. This forum is a prop forum, not necessarily a DIY forum per se, as you are presenting it. Therefore it is up to the user who opens a thread to decide whether his/her thread will be a DIY thread with detailed instructions, or not. Mine isn't, for the reasons cited above.

You should also know that actions speak louder than words, and it is very easy to yell "CGI" or "fake" at practically anything. That being said, when you upload your very own fake CGI X-Files stiletto video, please post the link on RPF so that everyone can see it. Thanks in advance.

No you sure don't, it's your choice. As I said, it just goes to show exactly the type of person someone is who does that.

 

[Drago]

No you sure don't, it's your choice. As I said, it just goes to show exactly the type of person someone is who does that.

A terrible, horrible person, right? Good job ignoring about 99% of what I wrote in that lengthy post. Sigh.

 

[Sean]

I retract my statement and give apologies to Triton. I now believe deception to be afoot ....

 

[jchristman]

Wow, I didn't intend to start an argument here, it's a shame things have gotten so heated.

I've carefully watched the video a few more times, and I'm still convinced at least some of the activations are visual effects. There are some weird movements of the spike that I really don't think can be explained by a trick of the light.

Also, I found this thread on an X-Files board (along with a link from this same user to your Black Oil video).

http://www.xfilesuniverse.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3010

It's made of Austenitic 304 Grade Stainless Steel and functions almost exactly like a gravity knife. When you point it down and press the button, the spike pops out and stays "locked" in that position. When you point it up and press the button, the spike retracts back into the handle. I also added an additional security measure so that if even the slightest force to the spike is applied, it will automatically retract. I had to do this so that it wouldn't be possible to hurt anyone with it, and therefore it can't be used as a weapon. Technically I'd be able to make a truly automatic spring-assisted spike, but those are illegal where I live, and I also have no need for such an item.

For those who don't know, The X-Files didn't have an automatic spike either. They used compressed air, more specifically an air hose which was hidden in the actor's sleeve, to make the spike pop out. Another prop they had was one with a gravity knife mechanism very similar to my replica.

That thread was from July 2014, and you said you made this in early 2014, so the video clearly doesn't show a new version. In light of this, I think the first activation in the video might be real (notice it cuts away before it can retract) and the rest are visual effects.

What's sad is it's a damn cool prop and even if it was just gravity deployed I'd have been impressed.

Jason

 

[Sean]

Should be an easy way to solve this. if drago is willing. hold it front of the softest of tissue paper sideways. pop the switch. and if it pokes the slightest of a hole In that paper with no video stops. I would say It's under spring assist. other than that i have no clue...

 

[TomVDJ]

Rylo once made daredevil canes that has similar functionality: with a push of a botton, the blades pop out. With that same push, they go back in. So it is certainly possible to have such a mechanism without CGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM8plX-xeOQ

 

[Drago]

Wow, I didn't intend to start an argument here, it's a shame things have gotten so heated.

I know, right? You accuse someone of using CGI, plus you do not add any rational arguments to go with it, and then you are surprised why things have gotten heated.

I've carefully watched the video a few more times, and I'm still convinced at least some of the activations are visual effects. There are some weird movements of the spike that I really don't think can be explained by a trick of the light.

Yet again, just like "Triton", you fail to provide anything of substance to support your case. "Weirdness" means absolutely nothing. Zero. Exactly which movement is weird, exactly why is it weird, and exactly how is this weirdness revealing a CGI blade as opposed to a real, physical blade? These are questions you need to address, if you wish to display rationality. Else I will have to assume you are just trolling the thread.

As far as "weird movements" are concerned, I am handling the stiletto in a certain way to recreate certain shots from the show, as I already told you in our private message exchange. When I open it pointing down, on my right side, this is from episode "Emily". When I open it horizontally, I mimic Krycek in episode "One Son". Other shots mimic episodes "The Red and the Black", "End Game", etc. This is an X-Files fan video which features a prop. It is not a demonstration of a guardfather spike, or a similar weapon.

Also, I found this thread on an X-Files board (along with a link from this same user to your Black Oil video).

That thread was from July 2014, and you said you made this in early 2014, so the video clearly doesn't show a new version.

I'm again sorry to have to disappoint you, as your video analysis skills really do not seem to be that impressive, to say the least. If you had even bothered to TRULY analyze the video, you would have noticed that it IS in fact a different prop than the one mentioned in that old post of mine (lol). Look at the prop I posted on my website, which is the one I refer to in that old post you cited: https://sites.google.com/site/aliengimlet/

The end caps on both props are identical, but in the prop in the video, the button is positioned lower on the handle, and both the slot AND button look different, plus the "ends" are larger, which is clearly noticable when you look at the spike-hole. The most obvious difference is the position of the slot and button.

Your logic says that if I made "a" prop in 2014, it surely means that I couldn't have progressed to making several of them, more complex versions, around the same time period. This is faulty reasoning, as my video clearly shows a different prop. For your information, I have made seven X-Files stiletto props. Yes, seven. I had to discard four of them because they failed. Right now I have three, and all function differently. The one you see in the video is one of the three.

So your statement needs correction: The video clearly DOES show a new version. A simple pausing of the video in at least three instances would easily have provided you with this information.

In light of this, I think the first activation in the video might be real (notice it cuts away before it can retract) and the rest are visual effects.

Then go ahead. Do it. I have said it to "Triton" and I'm saying it to you. Take a simple pen and add a CGI spike that pops out and retracts. Move it and turn it like I do. You don't have to make a long video. About ten seconds would be sufficient. I will wait.

What's sad is it's a damn cool prop and even if it was just gravity deployed I'd have been impressed.

The only thing that's sad is two people deciding to yell CGI, yet having absolutely no understanding of CGI.

When are you going to post your video?

 

[jchristman]

I'm also not going to spend hours/days of my life learning to composite 3D models just to prove someone on the internet wrong. Can you make a video with photorealistic CGI dinosaurs? No? Then Jurassic Park must be real!!

However, you clearly DO have some visual effects skills, as your only other Youtube video is of a CGI shot. No videos of building things, machining, or designing mechanics. Just CGI.

Yet again, just like "Triton", you fail to provide anything of substance to support your case. "Weirdness" means absolutely nothing. Zero. Exactly which movement is weird, exactly why is it weird, and exactly how is this weirdness revealing a CGI blade as opposed to a real, physical blade? These are questions you need to address, if you wish to display rationality. Else I will have to assume you are just trolling the thread.

Dude, I explained this earlier, I'm not just making a vague claim. Watch the blade at :24 when it's tilted towards the camera. It wobbles and doesn't quite match the movement of the handle. It looks like this every time the stiletto is tilted. Unless the spike portion is flexible, I don't think this can be explained by a trick of the light.

And yes, I know you've made multiple versions of this prop. All I'm saying is that in July of 2014 you said on another board you DIDN'T have an automatic spring loaded stiletto, yet you claim to have made this one is early 2014. The timelines don't add up. The picture links are dead in that other board, so I can't say which prop you were referring to there.

I'm not arguing further. I think you made an awesome prop, but I'm skeptical of this particular video.

Jason

 

[jchristman]

Rylo once made daredevil canes that has similar functionality: with a push of a botton, the blades pop out. With that same push, they go back in. So it is certainly possible to have such a mechanism without CGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM8plX-xeOQ

The mechanism is totally possible, I'm not doubting that. Just look further up the thread for the video explanation of how double action knives work.

 

[Drago]

I'm also not going to spend hours/days of my life learning to composite 3D models just to prove someone on the internet wrong. Can you make a video with photorealistic CGI dinosaurs? No? Then Jurassic Park must be real!!

You don't have to learn to composite 3D models, but if you want to accuse someone of CGI, you should be able to go at least one tiny step further and attempt to prove it. You are saying that my CGI blade has a fake reflective surface which changes depending on the angle and light. It has fake shadows on it, and it also becomes larger / smaller depending on it's location. Maybe I should start taking your CGI accusation as a compliment, lol.

However, you clearly DO have some visual effects skills, as your only other Youtube video is of a CGI shot. No videos of building things, machining, or designing mechanics. Just CGI.

Again, another false statement.

I juggle five balls in this video, and there is no CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l5a4bvDxks

I play piano in this video, and there is no CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F8m0yuNzMk

Just because I am not revealing the mechanism of something does not make it CGI.

Dude, I explained this earlier, I'm not just making a vague claim. Watch the blade at :24 when it's tilted towards the camera. It wobbles and doesn't quite match the movement of the handle. It looks like this every time the stiletto is tilted. Unless the spike portion is flexible, I don't think this can be explained by a trick of the light.

Unfortunately, yes you are. You are doing just that. Making a vague claim. I don't see what you are seeing. At 00:24 I don't see how the movement of the spike doesn't match the movement of the handle. Also your statement "it looks like this every time the stiletto is tilted" couldn't be further from the truth. Cut the video into pieces with VirtualDub and show me this "odd behavior" when the thing is tilted, frame by frame. I suggest you slow down the clip when it opens and closes. Zoom in. Watch for any flaws.

And yes, I know you've made multiple versions of this prop. All I'm saying is that in July of 2014 you said on another board you DIDN'T have an automatic spring loaded stiletto, yet you claim to have made this one is early 2014. The timelines don't add up. The picture links are dead in that other board, so I can't say which prop you were referring to there.

You are nitpicking my words in order to beat a dead horse. I said I made an X-Files Stiletto prop in early 2014. That doesn't mean I didn't make several of them in 2014. It doesn't mean that I stopped making more after I finished only one prop.

"He might have messed with the audio" is a valid point.

"He might be using more than one prop in the video" is a valid point.

"Why is it a push button and not a sliding button?" is a valid question.

"Since we don't see it retract when pointing down, it might be some form of spring-assisted gravity device instead of a classic double/dual action" is also a valid point.

"Automatic knives are illegal where he lives and therefore he might simply be very careful with his video presentation as well as his explanations" is a valid point.

HOWEVER... "the blade is CGI because there is a slight wobble which lasts half a second" is NOT a valid point, and neither is "He doesn't reveal the mechanism, so it's probably CGI".

I'm not arguing further. I think you made an awesome prop, but I'm skeptical of this particular video.

You have every right to be skeptical, and I have nothing against skepticism. After all, I created a video showing one of the most sought after X-Files props. It's just that you don't have anything serious to support your CGI claims. That's what I have a problem with.

All I can say to you at this point is that I swear on my life that there is no CGI in this video.

 

[Andymac84]

Drago, I hope you'll do a run of these:thumbsup

 

[TomVDJ]

Yep, me too. I can understand that it's almost impossible to ship these outside the EU, but within the EU, there should be no problem at all, I guess. No customs formalities between Shengen countries...

 

[Metallijosh]

Should be an easy way to solve this. if drago is willing. hold it front of the softest of tissue paper sideways. pop the switch. and if it pokes the slightest of a hole In that paper with no video stops. I would say It's under spring assist. other than that i have no clue...

I wanna see this, this video would stop the arguing.

I would like to know where the noise is coming from, is it something you added in after the fact?

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Yep, me too. I can understand that it's almost impossible to ship these outside the EU, but within the EU, there should be no problem at all,

Actually, stiletto knives are illegal in some EU countries. This MIGHT not count as such, since it isn't technically a "knife" so it would depend on the exact wording of the law in each country. An automatic ice pick might not be illegal where a sharp blade is...

I'm a fan of this weapon and looked into making a working one out of plastic last spring, based around the 3d printed static version I did a few years ago, so I hope that this IS real. The challenge is fitting all the parts in that small frame. Certainly not impossible to do, but neither is it impossible to do this using modern motion-tracking software. I haven't done it personally, but you need not look further than the decade-old X-men movies to see examples in cinema and these days, even home users have access to some pretty sophisticated software.

That said, not at all discounting any claims and not intending to offend, but knowing a fair bit about CGI from working in the games industry, editing video and having an interest in VFX, I took a look at the video frame-by-frame, searching for any oddities.

• As noted by others, there is a slight wobble of the spike in some spots. The movement at around 0:14 does look a bit jerky and odd. It could be the result of frame/field or compression errors but the fact that it seems to extend along the blade could also be a tell-tale sign of a motion-tracking error.
• In the shots where it extends or retracts, there is not much of a visible gap around the base of the spike where it enters the body. In the show where the spike is already extended (which I believe IS real without any doubt) there is a very visible gap around the spike where it exits. (This is a nitpick, but I noted it anyway.)
• The spike looks a little "flat shaded" and smooth to me. This could suggest CGI but it could also be due to very smoothly sanded "dull" metal.
• The movement of the spike is very even. Spring-loaded mechanism like this usually have a different acceleration curve. Switchblades are usually faster and there is a distinct "stopping motion" when they extend fully.
• Extending the spike seems to take 7 frames and retracting it takes only 3 frames. Now, I'm nowhere near an expert or even strongly knowledgeable about switchblades, but as I understand them, they work using springs of mutual strength that tip the balance back and forth and should therefore have the same speed when extending and retracting.
• At 00:27, when Drago holds the spike above his head there is a very strong "jerk" in the spike movement that doesn't match his hand. If you watch this frame-by-frame, the shading and focus shifts a lot during the movement, sometimes going in or out of perfect focus in just one frame, which might indicate software trying to mimic motion-blur but not succeeding fully.

The above are things I saw by looking for a couple minutes. I'm absolutely open to the idea that they can be explained by other reasons, like video compression, which can cause a lot of weird issues, but there are enough discrepancies to make me skeptical.

If I were doing this (with my admittedly novice level of skill) I'd probably try to model a transparent handle and keyframe-track over the real one, masking it out with an alpha channel or something and get that movement right before animating the spike. The spike can be "slaved" to the handle in any fairly good animation software, giving you a fairly accurate movement automatically. Not to suggest it's easy, but I can imagine how it could be done.

A photo showing just some of the internals, if you want to keep the method secret, would also help prove that it is real, even though I'm not discounting the claim despite the above.

If it is in fact CGI, then it took some skill to do and if it's real, even more so. It's a seriously cool prop either way. :thumbsup

 

[TomVDJ]

Actually, stiletto knives are illegal in some EU countries.

They are illegal to CARRY in Belgium, not to have them, not to ship them. As long as you keep them at home and don't walk around with them, there is no problem what-so-ever.

As for this video being CGI or not. This can be solved rather easy, no? If the topic starter can show a video of his prop puncturing the newspaper from today (only one sheet: even if the prop mechanism is not that strong, the pin should puncture, or at least push the sheet away a bit) within a few hours, then I guess it's pretty genuine, no? If it then still is CGI, than he can create these effects VERY fast, I guess... I have no idea how much time such CGI effects take, but I guess he can't create the effect of a non-real prop, puncturing a non-real sheet of paper on a realistic way, in only a few hours, right? If it is a real working prop, making such a video should only take a few minutes. This could close this discussion once and for all...

Or even better: If he can show the prop working on skype to a member here, there should be no doubt anymore, right?

 

[Kylash]

Would these be easier to ship anywhere if is was a kit, pile of parts?

 

[Drago]

I want to kindly ask those who have been following the thread to read this following post of mine carefully.

It seems that many things I've said are being completely ignored, so I ask myself what's the point in making lengthy, detailed posts? People talk about Skype, yet I've mentioned that a long time forum member (Terrasolo) already has an almost identical X-Files Stiletto prop that I personally helped him create. He doesn't want to get involved in the thread because it's almost becoming ridiculous. X-Files fans have held my props in their own hands. Others have seen it on Skype. Should I post Facebook profiles so people can message them and ask, only to be accused afterwards that I simply asked them to lie in my favor?

The five "valid points" (bolded) I raised at the end of my long previous post are also being ignored, especially point number five. Others even ask about the audio, when I have explicitly stated that I added sound effects to match the sound from the show. This is first and foremost a fan video. People are also ignoring what I said in the first page of this thread... that the prop cannot be used as a weapon in it's current state, unless you tweak it. Those who are knowledgable on the matter can do their own definition from that one. If people understood what I intended to say there, they wouldn't request that I hold it in front of a newspaper, push the button, and pierce it.

For what it's worth, I am not seeking validation from every single RPF member. It would be stupid to do so. This thread currently has about a thousand views, and only two people have decided to nitpick. The private inquiries I have received as well as private messages from highly respected RPF members supporting me is fully sufficient. In fact, receiving praise from the X-Files property master himself is more than enough for me. My accomplishment is owning a prop I wanted to have since I was a kid when I first watched X-Files episode "Colony".

The shot which supposedly reveals "motion tracking" is the one where I open it sideways. Although I have pointed out that I am standing directly under a light, and that this is why the spike's surface changes when I lift it above my head, making it appear like a wobble or jerk, JOATRASH FX interprets this as evidence for a 3D spike. That's okay. He has a right to be skeptical.

I'm a very busy person doing several projects. At first, I didn't intend to film any additional footage for this prop whatsoever, because there is a risk of one video leading to another. I know from personal experience in different matters. "Please film it from this angle", "Please film it from that angle", "I want to see A while you are doing B... but while you're at it, you could also do C", "Why are you focused on X and not revealing Y?". Even if I were to do every single thing someone requested in this thread, sooner or later another "video expert" would show up and say he doesn't believe it until he holds it in his own hands.

That being said, I have filmed something new and uploaded it. The video is unlisted, so only people who have the link can watch it.

It is short and to the point: https://youtu.be/PemYWxcSDQQ

Enjoy.

 

[TomVDJ]

OK, discussion closed now? . Other question: run for people in the EU or just neighbouring countries? .

 

[JOATRASH FX]

The shot which supposedly reveals "motion tracking" is the one where I open it sideways.

To be fair, I did say that such wobble could be generated my video artifacts as well.

That being said, I have filmed something new and uploaded it. The video is unlisted, so only people who have the link can watch it.
It is short and to the point: https://youtu.be/PemYWxcSDQQ
Enjoy.

I realize that this plays into your some-people-will-never-be-satisfied-intimation, but why did you start the new video by quickly moving your arm into frame like that? The spike seems to begin extracting exactly when your arm stops, suggesting (to the skeptical) that it's inertia doing the work and not a spring. Then when you retract, you have it turned up, suggesting that gravity (again, in the eyes of a skeptic) is doing the work. I can (more or less) replicate that effect with the plastic replica I made, albeit not as smoothly since my aluminum spike is too lightweight to have enough inertia for smooth motion and it "catches" on the plastic. Making a "stopping catch" to keep the spike from falling back into the handle would not be too difficult.

Why not simply hold the entire prop in frame, still and upright, extend the spike with no arm movements, tear the paper, turn the prop upside down and then retract the spike upwards without a lot of unnecessary motions? To use a really awful pun (sorry)... I want to believe... but it's difficult to no be Scully when this new video feels like it contains more attempts at obfuscation.

This prop has been such a "holy grail" for many, attempted and talked about so many times that it's natural for people to be skeptical and (perhaps overly) scrutinize new attempts at making it reality.

But if you have indeed managed to replicate it with functional automatic extend-and-retract, then I sincerely salute your skill and praise you for achieving something that many have attempted and failed at.