Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Orphia Nay]

Better yet: post all text as text, not as images of text.

Citing the source.

 

[nt1]

Slight correction but otherwise spot on.

Slight correction but otherwise spit on

 

[Oystein]

Says the guy at the James Randi forum.
It was a james randi reference to magicians.
...
So. No.

What you said is not even close. I offered to take footage that someone else chose rather than cherry pick what i thought was the most obvious.
...

You quoted, but did not respond to this:
Me: "I am still waiting for you to explain the point of the videos you posted in reply."

But let me explain why the comparison to a magician IS close to what you seem to be doing:
The point of letting a member of the audience pick a card is to make the audience feel AS IF it has meaningful input to the outcome of the magic trick, but reality is that NO MATTER which card they pick, the subsequent manipulations of the magician will yield the SAME result.

It appears to me that you are quite confident that NO MATTER which video we present to you, your subsequent image manipulations WILL yield the SAME result: bright lines over contours, such as the borders and edges of windows and buildings.

This then suggests the outcome is a function of the manipulation and NOT of the history of the video. Just like the magic trick works regardless of which card was picked - it's the MAGIC TRICK that ensure they get the result they want.

So, you must convince us that your pulling sliders in a photo-manipulation app is not sure to eventually enhance or show as a bright line the contours of windows and buildings in any video screenshot, no matter its actua context and content.

In other words, you need to prove that, when you do your slider-pulling ...
... on images that have a certain kind of manipulation done to them, you generally get this result
... on images that have a certain kind of manipulation NOT done to them, you generally DON'T get this result
(You of course need to specify the manipulation! Was something inserted? Deleted? A selected region enhanced and the rest not?

------------------

And anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain the point of the videos you posted in reply.

 

[nt1]

You quoted, but did not respond to this:
Me: "I am still waiting for you to explain the point of the videos you posted in reply."

But let me explain why the comparison to a magician IS close to what you seem to be doing:
The point of letting a member of the audience pick a card is to make the audience feel AS IF it has meaningful input to the outcome of the magic trick, but reality is that NO MATTER which card they pick, the subsequent manipulations of the magician will yield the SAME result.

It appears to me that you are quite confident that NO MATTER which video we present to you, your subsequent image manipulations WILL yield the SAME result: bright lines over contours, such as the borders and edges of windows and buildings.

This then suggests the outcome is a function of the manipulation and NOT of the history of the video. Just like the magic trick works regardless of which card was picked - it's the MAGIC TRICK that ensure they get the result they want.

So, you must convince us that your pulling sliders in a photo-manipulation app is not sure to eventually enhance or show as a bright line the contours of windows and buildings in any video screenshot, no matter its actua context and content.

In other words, you need to prove that, when you do your slider-pulling ...
... on images that have a certain kind of manipulation done to them, you generally get this result
... on images that have a certain kind of manipulation NOT done to them, you generally DON'T get this result
(You of course need to specify the manipulation! Was something inserted? Deleted? A selected region enhanced and the rest not?

------------------

And anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain the point of the videos you posted in reply.

Did you win a typing contest in school? You won a typing contest didnt you?

You are such a fine writer that you should make a second line of childrens books. Tuck me in. Read one to me. Zzzzzzzzz.

 

[nt1]

Oh this is its own thread!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!! No way!?!?!?

Ok cool thank you! Thank you!!!!!!

 

[Oystein]

It seems the magic trick is to use an edge detection algorithm. Then suggest that the bright lines the algorithm (i.e. the TRICK) paints over edges is SOMEHOW "suspicious". And then run off to the side whence to vaguely insult the audience for not being all that gullible.

 

[Orphia Nay]

This is right up there with Killtown seeing numbers in the smoke.

Hahaha, yep, good times, and yay, now we get more pretty patterns in overexposed screenshots of morbid scenes. Lovely.

 

[Brainster]

Let me point out an old post of Ryan Mackey's about the Gravy Line. It's basically about deciding what is worth the debunking effort and what is not. Mackey suggests that we look first at how well-rounded the CT being presented is:

1. Complete Theory (Score = 1.0): An argument that is complete and self-consistent, allowing examination of a single coherent hypothesis.

2. Partial Theory (Score = 0.5): An argument that is generally complete and self-consistent, but vague in at least one major detail, requiring examination of an entire family of related hypotheses.

3. Anomaly or Artifact (Score = 0.25): An argument that criticizes an existing theory while proposing no competing hypothesis of its own, such that if the argument is accepted, uncertainty actually increases.

I do particularly like that he mentioned artifact in that third category, but clearly nt1 has presented no complete or partial theory. Score=0.25

As I pointed out in that thread (wow, 18 years ago) another factor to consider is significance. If nt1 is correct and there was something odd about the photos, then what? Going back to the early pages of this thread nt1 seemed to be doing the "we need a real investigation" bit, but how does finding artifacts in photos further that cause? Does nt1 feel that his evidence alone is enough to reopen the case?

I see no real significance here, but let's be generous and say that it's 0.10 (i.e., 10% possibility that this is the earth-shattering event that results in a new 9-11 Commission). So we've only hit two factors and already we're at 0.025 (0.25*0.10). Below the Gravy line already.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay. I've watched all the videos, read all of the ChatGPT transcripts and you've convinced me that the images have been manipulated.

Therefore...?

 

[Orphia Nay]

It seems the magic trick is to use an edge detection algorithm. Then suggest that the bright lines the algorithm (i.e. the TRICK) paints over edges is SOMEHOW "suspicious". And then run off to the side whence to vaguely insult the audience for not being all that gullible.

And he's altering the luminance, contrast, and the channel separation. Basically throwing ◊◊◊◊ against the wall and hoping it will stick.

 

[nt1]

Yes. You only just now noticed??

I envy your psychic ability to know whether a text you have not read is garbage or not.

Having read what you have written so far, I think it's fair to say it isn't even garbage.
Because I am still waiting for you to explain the point of the videos (and images) you posted in reply.

 

[nt1]

 

[nt1]

 

[nt1]

Youll enjoy it.

 

[nt1]

And since you asked

 

[zooterkin]

Several posts moved to AAH. Please keep to the topic of thread, and don't make it about other members.

Also, for preference, please make your point in text rather than simply giving links to videos, this is a text-based discussion forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In my own words.

Curve manipulation. Bends the light of a photo. It can reveal unnatural lighting that cannot be replicated naturally.

Needs more technobabble.

So your schtick is to ask the audience to pick a video, fake some artefacts into it and say "look at these suspicious artefacts".

How do you think it's going so far?

 

[nt1]

Needs more technobabble.

So your schtick is to ask the audience to pick a video, fake some artefacts into it and say "look at these suspicious artefacts".

How do you think it's going so far?

More? Thanks Jack. What do the paychecks look like? Any openings? I could work my way up to management. Ill always remember you for what you did to get me the job.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sounds paranoid, if you don't mind my saying so.

Since you can't show us how we could each use an image manipulation tool to "reveal" the suspiciously sharp border around the top of building 7, I'm entirely convinced you faked it.

Why should anyone take you seriously if you're just lying to us for fun?

 

[nt1]

Sounds paranoid, if you don't mind my saying so.

Since you can't show us how we could each use an image manipulation tool to "reveal" the suspiciously sharp border around the top of building 7, I'm entirely convinced you faked it.

Why should anyone take you seriously if you're just lying to us for fun?

I do mind. Is that ok jack? Is that in the rules? I do mind what you said. The same way you minded what i said.