Pixie Investigation With Mr. Erwin Saunders.

[BIAD]

I feel terrible, a whole month had passed without me catching Mr. Saunders' latest videos.
You can't imagine how I feel right now.





But it's good to have him back.

[Wallfire]

I just love these videos 

[BIAD]

I just love these videos 

The CGI is getting better and Erwin's accident-proneness is as well!

[Wallfire]

I just love these videos 

The CGI is getting better and Erwin's accident-proneness is as well!

I hope he does not over do it and spoil the feel of the videos

[Ninurta]

Fascinating, sort of like a slow motion train wreck!

Judging by the number of "OW!", "AH!" "OH!" exclamations, as well as the evident unsure footing, I am given to understand that pixie hunting is a particularly dangerous vocation, especially in Britain. It appears, from Erwin's motions, that the entire island must be rocking like a boat at sea!

I was so fascinated that I looked up all of his videos. I found 13, and downloaded them to a local drive (at 1280 X 720 HD pixels, 25 frames per second). I may string all of them together into a single video, a documentary on pixie hunting. It will be 1 hour, 37 minutes, and 51 seconds long if I do, and weigh in at nearly 2 gigabytes. That's a lot of pixie hunting!

I may cull out the sections that have actual pixies in them, and create a shorter video of just pixies. The CGI appears very good. Usually, what gives it away is lighting angles at odds with the background images, but these appear to be spot on. Breaking it down into a frame by frame slideshow, we may be able to detect a lack of motion blur or mismatched/ pixellated edges, but in the videos as shown, it's really good. The animation of the pixies is as well. I give it five thumbs up!

The models of the pixies reminds me of a tiny mummy that was found a hundred years ago or so in a cave out west of here. That mummy was nearly twice as big as Erwin says these creatures are, but the faces are almost identical.

Kudos - I have new weirdness to be on the lookout for in the woods!

.

[BIAD]

Fascinating, sort of like a slow motion train wreck!

Judging by the number of "OW!", "AH!" "OH!" exclamations, as well as the evident unsure footing, I am given to understand that pixie hunting is a particularly dangerous vocation, especially in Britain. It appears, from Erwin's motions, that the entire island must be rocking like a boat at sea!

I was so fascinated that I looked up all of his videos. I found 13, and downloaded them to a local drive (at 1280 X 720 HD pixels, 25 frames per second). I may string all of them together into a single video, a documentary on pixie hunting. It will be 1 hour, 37 minutes, and 51 seconds long if I do, and weigh in at nearly 2 gigabytes. That's a lot of pixie hunting!

I may cull out the sections that have actual pixies in them, and create a shorter video of just pixies. The CGI appears very good. Usually, what gives it away is lighting angles at odds with the background images, but these appear to be spot on. Breaking it down into a frame by frame slideshow, we may be able to detect a lack of motion blur or mismatched/ pixellated edges, but in the videos as shown, it's really good. The animation of the pixies is as well. I give it five thumbs up!

The models of the pixies reminds me of a tiny mummy that was found a hundred years ago or so in a cave out west of here.
That mummy was nearly twice as big as Erwin says these creatures are, but the faces are almost identical.

Kudos - I have new weirdness to be on the lookout for in the woods!

It is a slow-mo train wreck!

Erwin's antics are a little over-the-top, considering such a reality-changing concept of having an unknown intelligent species
living beside us and that's what makes me want to think it's a slightly sardonic, pan-faced comedy sketch about a bungling
gentle person delivering mundane information with a sprinkling of folklore-magic thrown-in to orbit around.

It has to be that-of course, if Pixies did exist, then they'd be in cages at Porton Down Research Centre inhaling strange gases
and believing they're doing it for Queen-and-country!

Mr. Saunders does put on a good show, he comes-off as a lounging Professor who's never been involved in manual work.
His easy attitude to the filming of these creatures adds to a perception that they're real, but the viewer merely hasn't been
privy to them due their own materialistic lifestyle.

Also, Erwin's reluctance to film himself -from Tom's advice, to video himself moving from one place to another and his
mumbling request at the end of the footage for subscription, likes, etc, also relates someone who shuns banausic needs.
It implies the cold business-entertainment -like mind of a partner encroaching on a tender, enchanted topic of a spiritual
man living in a place of old-world magic.
It's a quaint touch!

Your possible video would be cool to see and not having a clue how CGI works, it'll be interesting if other RN members
could assist in showing how the effects were done.
Personally, I'd like us to find the footage genuine and we'd all have to reevaluate ourselves and the world around us!

By the way, Britain may be rocking slightly in its surrounding waters due to the lop-sided class-structure.
However, it wobbles south to north, not east to west... as Gordi can testify!


It's nice to see others who've written about him too.
Pixies Real or Myth?-Pixies Are Not Fairies

[Ninurta]

The most recently presented pixies (the Wilton Pixies) were according to Erwin, filmed some time ago, so that footage probably predates the initially presented pixies. Looking at them frame by frame, there are differences across time. The Wilton pixies (the ones tossing what appear to be grapes across rocks) are entirely naked and devoid of hair. In contrast, the other pixies wear loincloths with long tails on them, and frequently have a patch of short hair on their heads. Also, the occipital region of the Wilton pixies' heads are much more pointed, whereas the other pixies' heads are far more rounded at the back. Could be developmental differences over time, evolutionary differences, tribal markers (like the pointy headed indians from Central and South America, where babies heads were intentionally deformed to be more pointy)... OR it could just be adjustments to the 3D models used for the CGI over time.

The lighting on the pixies is spot-on matched to the background they are presented in, both in lighting direction and intensity/contrast. No problems there.

All of the motion blur I've examined is also a perfect match to the background motion blur (when the camera jiggles or is panned), so no tell-tales there, either.

What I'm looking for now is pixie interaction with the background - plants, branches, or leaves getting bumped, that sort of thing.

All in all, I think the CGI is top notch.

Some of the story line is questionable, though. For example, Erwin mentions their use of bows and arrows. I have serious reservations that a bow and arrow combination small enough for them to use could develop the mass-velocity combination necessary to penetrate the skins of "prey" animals the pixies might be hunting. I suppose it's possible, given the right combination of construction materials. If they are 10" tall as he says, and used bows modeled on longbows, that would make the bows also around 10" long,

Gotta git for now. maybe more later.

.

[BIAD]

The most recently presented pixies (the Wilton Pixies) were according to Erwin, filmed some time ago, so that footage probably predates the initially presented pixies. Looking at them frame by frame, there are differences across time. The Wilton pixies (the ones tossing what appear to be grapes across rocks) are entirely naked and devoid of hair. In contrast, the other pixies wear loincloths with long tails on them, and frequently have a patch of short hair on their heads. Also, the occipital region of the Wilton pixies' heads are much more pointed, whereas the other pixies' heads are far more rounded at the back. Could be developmental differences over time, evolutionary differences, tribal markers (like the pointy headed indians from Central and South America, where babies heads were intentionally deformed to be more pointy)... OR it could just be adjustments to the 3D models used for the CGI over time.

The lighting on the pixies is spot-on matched to the background they are presented in, both in lighting direction and intensity/contrast. No problems there.

All of the motion blur I've examined is also a perfect match to the background motion blur (when the camera jiggles or is panned), so no tell-tales there, either.

What I'm looking for now is pixie interaction with the background - plants, branches, or leaves getting bumped, that sort of thing.

All in all, I think the CGI is top notch.

Some of the story line is questionable, though. For example, Erwin mentions their use of bows and arrows. I have serious reservations that a bow and arrow combination small enough for them to use could develop the mass-velocity combination necessary to penetrate the skins of "prey" animals the pixies might be hunting. I suppose it's possible, given the right combination of construction materials. If they are 10" tall as he says, and used bows modeled on longbows, that would make the bows also around 10" long,

Gotta git for now. maybe more later.

Brilliant analysis!
Either the mysterious 'Tom' is a computer-art genius or the Pixies are... Oh my. 

[Ninurta]

Either the mysterious 'Tom' is a computer-art genius or the Pixies are... Oh my. 

I'm of the opinion that it would take 3 or 4 people - a photography/film expert, a 3D modeling expert, and a CGI animator... plus Erwin the Presenter, the 4th person.

Erwin seems a master at the presenters art - he pulls off the bumbling professorial type beautifully. His rambling, waffling speech and the way that he seems to never know what to do with his arms when on camera is priceless!

The detail in the pixies animation is great. They look all around as if hyper aware (something I do as well, which is probably why I noticed it - folks have told me that it looks like I'm trying to see everywhere at once!), they look back at where they're going (to make sure of their footing on the escape route), then back at Erwin, then back and forth a couple of times before leaping out of view. Arms and legs are perfectly aligned to maintain balance for whatever motion they do.

The motion blur upon panning or zooming the camera is precisely matched. The focal blur of the pixies is perfectly matched with the focal plane of their distance. The size of the model is always consistent with the background regardless of the zoom - I would presume that to not be easy, given the intricacies of the background. It's not like zooming in on a UFO CGI model in a cloudless sky where there is nothing to match up to.

Yup, I think the animator needs a job in Hollywood at a CGI house, if he or she doesn't already have one!

.

[BIAD]

...The motion blur upon panning or zooming the camera is precisely matched.
The focal blur of the pixies is perfectly matched with the focal plane of their distance.
The size of the model is always consistent with the background regardless of the zoom - I would presume
that to not be easy, given the intricacies of the background. It's not like zooming in on a UFO CGI model
in a cloudless sky where there is nothing to match up to.

Yup, I think the animator needs a job in Hollywood at a CGI house, if he or she doesn't already have one!...

Would it be easier to suggest the figures are real or is there a natural 'feeling' that the Pixies in the footage
are fake?

[Wallfire]

...The motion blur upon panning or zooming the camera is precisely matched.
The focal blur of the pixies is perfectly matched with the focal plane of their distance.
The size of the model is always consistent with the background regardless of the zoom - I would presume
that to not be easy, given the intricacies of the background. It's not like zooming in on a UFO CGI model
in a cloudless sky where there is nothing to match up to.

Yup, I think the animator needs a job in Hollywood at a CGI house, if he or she doesn't already have one!...

Would it be easier to suggest the figures are real or is there a natural 'feeling' that the Pixies in the footage
are fake?

I think this is a case of the videos give a feel good to must people, and perhaps we should just enjoy the videos for what they are, fun, harmless and feel good.   
BTW if it is CGI the person doing it is VERY good

[BIAD]

...I think this is a case of the videos give a feel good to must people, and perhaps we should just enjoy
the videos for what they are, fun, harmless and feel good.   
BTW if it is CGI the person doing it is VERY good

Damn it...! Wallfire isn't falling for my ploy!
I was hoping to convince RN members to scour the countryside with a jar and net!


But seriously, it shows that the technical side-even at amateur-level, is very good and one can only
imagine how views can be changed with actual still-photography.

[BIAD]

Erwin and his jovial nature, continues his journey of revealing the elusive Pixies.

With the use camouflage and his stealth, Mr. Saunders becomes one with the forest in hopes
of luring the small creatures out into the open with a special attraction.



Today, were treated to a double-feature and a different kind of forest-dweller.

[guohua]

What if it's all REAL!!?? A Little Pixie Dust and the world is all Rainbows and Unicorns,,,,   Oh!! GOD!!! Sounds like California!

[Mystic Wanderer]

This thread was posted when I had company staying with me.  Just now getting to see it.

I'll just say, Pixies are real; Sylvia Browne said so (may she rest in peace). She saw them in a forest somewhere while visiting.    

She wrote about them in one of her books, but it's been so many years ago when I read it, I forget the title.

Real?  I don't know; never saw one myself, but then, I've seen ghosts and an "invisible" Bigfoot, which other people have not, so...  

[gordi]

Erwin and his jovial nature, continues his journey of revealing the elusive Pixies.

With the use camouflage and his stealth, Mr. Saunders becomes one with the forest in hopes
of luring the small creatures out into the open with a special attraction....

What a lovely old character. Nuttier than a fruitcake, but I'd love to spend a day in the woods with him just for the hell of it! That would be fun... I'd show him how to carve a wooden mushroom!!
What I don't get is... the (obviously CGI/faked) pixie footage doesn't seem to "sit" with the lovely, bumbling nature of the man himself. Is he just a caricature? A role that the on-screen actor is playing? Because I can't see THAT guy inserting pretty good CGI monkey-pixie footage into these quaint wee clips. Or is someone else editing the footage for him and doing the CGI stuff for a giggle??
If he's an actor playing a role then he's very good! I can see him doing an Art/Painting show on TV.
If he's REAL and someone else is doing the creative editing... does he know?? Because he comes across as being very genuine to me. Mad, but genuine!

Great wee videos whichever way you look at them.
Thanks for sharing again!

G

[Wallfire]

Erwin and his jovial nature, continues his journey of revealing the elusive Pixies.

With the use camouflage and his stealth, Mr. Saunders becomes one with the forest in hopes
of luring the small creatures out into the open with a special attraction....

What a lovely old character. Nuttier than a fruitcake, but I'd love to spend a day in the woods with him just for the hell of it! That would be fun... I'd show him how to carve a wooden mushroom!!
What I don't get is... the (obviously CGI/faked) pixie footage doesn't seem to "sit" with the lovely, bumbling nature of the man himself. Is he just a caricature? A role that the on-screen actor is playing? Because I can't see THAT guy inserting pretty good CGI monkey-pixie footage into these quaint wee clips. Or is someone else editing the footage for him and doing the CGI stuff for a giggle??
If he's an actor playing a role then he's very good! I can see him doing an Art/Painting show on TV.
If he's REAL and someone else is doing the creative editing... does he know?? Because he comes across as being very genuine to me. Mad, but genuine!

Great wee videos whichever way you look at them.
Thanks for sharing again!

G

I think that Gordi has hit the nail on the head. How could such a nice old character be doing CGI.
When I first seen the videos it remembered me of some group carrying out some form of  experiment into the control or shall we say behaviour adjustment of people who watch his videos. For example how much are people willing to forgive or believe what  they see and are told because of the character that tells about it. Now I just enjoy them

[BIAD]

Gordi wrote:


What I don't get is... the (obviously CGI/faked) pixie footage doesn't seem to "sit" with the lovely, bumbling nature of the man himself.
Is he just a caricature? A role that the on-screen actor is playing? Because I can't see THAT guy inserting pretty good CGI monkey-pixie
footage into these quaint wee clips. Or is someone else editing the footage for him and doing the CGI stuff for a giggle??

If he's an actor playing a role then he's very good! I can see him doing an Art/Painting show on TV.
If he's REAL and someone else is doing the creative editing... does he know?? Because he comes across as being very genuine to me.
Mad, but genuine!...

Wallfire wrote:

I think that Gordi has hit the nail on the head. How could such a nice old character be doing CGI.
When I first seen the videos it remembered me of some group carrying out some form of  experiment into the control or shall we say
behaviour adjustment of people who watch his videos.

For example how much are people willing to forgive or believe what  they see and are told because of the character that tells about it.
Now I just enjoy them...

It is perplexing -to say the least!
Here we have a man who seems exactly as Gordi and Wallfire describe, and a subject matter that is at odds with this character.
Our rational minds tell us to just enjoy the light-hearted humorous jaunts through the English woodlands with Erwin and seem
to nod towards gentler-times, when comedy was less abrasive.

Yet, the core reason for the videos is presented as factual and there's never any reference to the existence of Pixies in a jocular
manner. To the bumbling Erwin, the small humanoids -and now a cave-dwelling Wyrm-thing, are presented as plain matter-of-fact
and any information of these strange creatures involves small details that the bedraggled gent believes is important.

A previous video acknowledges that there is another person involved, a young man named 'Tom'. Tom -I believe, is the brains
behind the CGI and even attempted to involve a drone in the Pixie investigation. Erwin advised him -and the viewer, that the
apparatus was too noisy and so, we haven't been shown any fast-moving aerial footage.

So even if we accept that this mysterious Tom-character is the one drafting the theme of the videos and creating the little beings
living in the wood, it would still mean that Erwin must have agreed to maintain the falsehood and behave as if it was all true.
I doubt Erwin is delusional and cannot grasp that it's all a charade, his conduct doesn't give the viewer any evidence that he's
'living in a world of his own'!

In his recent 'camouflage' video, he comments that the viewer may not be able to see him and after pulling the netting away, he
says that he's joking of course. A excellent way of killing a prank and hinting he doesn't like to fool people behind their backs...
skillfully portraying that he's not a cruel person.

So where does one go from here?
We're taught that Pixies and fairy-folk belong in children's books and that the corners of our reality-map are all explored.
Well-spoken, polite people are generally intelligent and should be listened to for advice on how to better one's lifestyle.
The gentle nature of Erwin also implies that the pursuit of wealth is not paramount and many will automatically assume that he
lives a comfortable and successful life. Hence, we equate intelligence, high morals and wealth as a mark of a person who holds
standards that doesn't involve deception.

Erwin Saunders never attempts to sell you anything materialistic and even grumbles about having to ask the viewer to subscribe
to his video site. There's no indication of product-placement and through my searching, no other website regarding him and his
interests exist.

Yet, we're stuck with the subject-matter, Pixies!
How can the viewer apply the perception of this benign, affable character and his bumbling-yet-serious narrative with the pretence
that his friend Tom is performing? Erwin verbally and physically indicates where the creatures are and the viewer sees them.
Our reality demands that Erwin is pretending to observe the Pixies and Tom MUST inserts the CGI later.
Which means well-choreographed behavior, excellent acting and collusion by both parties.

I agree with Wallfire, that the easy way out of this puzzle is to just sit back and enjoy them. But in a world where we don't like to be
fooled, what options are there? There will always be viewers who will cajole Erwin to produce more videos for enjoyment purposes
only and there'll be some who will embrace the idea that it's all real.

The scary part is what if Mystic and the second set of viewers are correct... and Erwin is really who he is and those scurrying Pixies
are really who they are?!!!

[Night Star]

The videos and Mr. Saunders were just delightful. Being an Elf and living in the woodlands, I would advise this man to go further into the forest and sit silently for a while and he will see more. Ok, I'm off to my secret Elvin village now. Carry on. 

[Ninurta]

Erwin outdid himself this time. The CGI on that Wyrm was unbelievable. It even cast the appropriate shadow in the torch light. It certainly looked real, and I can't say for sure that it wasn't - I've seen strange, unexplainable things deep underground too, so who knows? It had a longer body and neck than a Komodo Dragon, and appeared more to be a heavy-bodied snake with legs... and the legs moved appropriately for lizard - locomotion as well.

Erwin may have stumbled upon the recipe for finding cryptids - he's certainly had a good run of luck in only a couple of years, and there is no denying that he's got some awesome ninja skills out in the forest... especially if he got his camo cover with him!

The first video in this set, the one that kept flashing "or her" onscreen, set me to wondering - for all his skill and good fortune, Erwin seems to never have captured a FEMALE pixie on film, and I have to wonder why. Do the male pixies force the women folk to stay back at the cave and make sammiches instead of frolicking in the sun as the males do? What if that frickin' wyrm eats all the wimmin-folk? The species could die out!

It seems a poor strategy for the survival of the species...

P.S. - Yes, I have downloaded every single one of Erwin's videos I could find, and saved them to a local drive so that I can step through them frame by frame to look for glitches and the like, and so far have not found a one. The lighting, focus, contrast, edges, etc are exactly what one would expect if it were real. Admittedly, I'm no CGI expert, and could never make a dime at it, but the work looks phenomenal to me, even frame by frame!



.