-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage
- Thread starter nt1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 9/11 evidence
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,099
Ball's in your court, dude.
Show us how it's done so anyone else can replicate your result.
Show us how it's done so anyone else can replicate your result.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 83,780
Take it to your own thread
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It doesn't appear that you are. I'm asking you very simple questions about the tools and techniques that you're using.
You say you're using "curve manipulation." But you don't seem to know what that is. You're actually manipulating conceptual channels in a color model. You have an RGB image. But you're actually manipulating the Y channel of a YUV color space using a curve that represents a mapping function. It's not inappropriate to ask if you understand the mathematical effect of the luminance map you've applied. For now we can leave aside difficult questions like whether your conversion from RGB to YUV uses perceptual weights or energy weights. And that's because the toy tool you appear to be using doesn't let you control that. But even in the simplest sense you don't seem to understand how to use the tool.
You say curve manipulation "bends" light. No it doesn't, but I'd be willing to entertain an explanation that is more specific about what you think that means. So I asked you for one, but you provided only name-calling and snark. I asked you what the purpose of a luminance map is and you said it reveals natural light versus unnatural light, presumably resulting from the digital image manipulation you insinuate has occurred in the 9/11 video. That's like asking someone what a fingerprint is and being told it's a thing that determines whether someone has robbed a bank. Your explanation lacks several crucial steps. Therefore I'm skeptical that you're ready for a tough, detailed discussion.
Your go-to luminance map is an inverted paraboloid function with its apex centered at the midpoint. Since you can't explain what that does or why you chose it, I'll educate you. The darkest portions of the original image will remain dark. The brightest portions of the original image will be reversed to dark. But more importantly, the midrange tones will be amplified and the difference between light midtones and dark midtowns on either side of the apex will be eliminated. You're not revealing anything; you're actually obscuring image data from the original image and replacing it with false luminous intensity.
Your other luminance maps are simply variations on a band-pass filter. You're preferentially amplifying selected midtones—not just a little bit, but to the point of eliminating most or all variation within your passed band.
Both of these strategies accomplish nothing more than crude edge detection. Congratulations, you found edges—crudely.
Don't be rude. You've stepped into my area of professional expertise. And as long as we're commenting on avatars—if yours is you, then I've been doing it longer than you've been alive.
No, I don't think I will. However, I'm out for the day. So that should give you time to compose your more detailed explanation.
That's the kind of answer we can reasonably expect from you. Oystein has demonstrated a correct understanding of the mathematical effect of the tools they use. So far, you cannot.
Then please do so. You've posted images accompanied by absurdly flailing luminance maps. You seem to think these images speak for themselves to establish the rigor and probative value of your technique. They do not.
You've also posted screen shots purporting to be bits of a dialogue with a consumer AI regarding image analysis. I have no interest in what conversations you're having in the background with a large language model. I'm interested only in whether you can explain and defend your method sufficiently to someone with expertise in the field.
No one is claiming you have. In fact luminance response curves have been part of photography from the very beginning. But you're claiming you can apply a luminance map in a way that reveals evidence of digital image manipulation. That's a novel claim, and it's reasonable to ask you to explain in detail how that works.
The maps you provided are merely variations on a band-pass filter. Since your filters tend to remove the distinction between adjacent intensities, it will create artifacts in the form of bands within which will appear little or no distinction.
Not the way you're misusing it. You're applying a luminance map in a way guaranteed to create a certain kind of artifact and then shouting Eureka! at the artifact.
Just because you own a chisel doesn't make you Michelangelo.
No, we're looking at you like you're using your chisel to stir your coffee while claiming to be an expert sculptor. People are incredulous not because they don't understand how image manipulation works or how luminance maps work, but because they're not convinced by your bluff and bluster.
Last edited:
@nti: Somewhere back in these tangled woods you said that you were
quite happy with the scrutiny you were getting.
Now (I skipped ahead) you seem quite unhappy, and have apparently turned snotty.
Gotta tell ya, that's the same old story we've seen with cranks on this forum over the course of decades. Everything is always about their mama's little boy, and nothing else. When the meanies start in with their picky stuff about evidence & logic & coherence, Mr. Crank gets resentful, then derisive, then nasty and abusive.
And they never, ever step back, cool down, and address what's actually going on.
quite happy with the scrutiny you were getting.
Now (I skipped ahead) you seem quite unhappy, and have apparently turned snotty.
Gotta tell ya, that's the same old story we've seen with cranks on this forum over the course of decades. Everything is always about their mama's little boy, and nothing else. When the meanies start in with their picky stuff about evidence & logic & coherence, Mr. Crank gets resentful, then derisive, then nasty and abusive.
And they never, ever step back, cool down, and address what's actually going on.
Last edited:
Once again, the captain of the USS Utah has loosed a broadside to deal with a lath and inner tube raft.
And, this time, a full salvo of torpedos, and a helping of the latest Sea Snark missiles with nasty-looking warheads. Can anybody define overkill?
And, this time, a full salvo of torpedos, and a helping of the latest Sea Snark missiles with nasty-looking warheads. Can anybody define overkill?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,099
Guy just wants to have a bit of fun at our expense but he gets pretty exercised when people ask him questions instead of being baffled by his elite skills. What meanies we are. He's the real victim of 9/11.
Ixnay. He's onto our scheme. We're in over our heads here. We must regroup and figure out how to contain the situation.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
That attitude was there from their first post in the 'welcome new members' thread.
I am unsurprised by how this gone.
Last edited:
I clicked, I saw, I said "OOG!"
Quoting Howland Owl after tasting Churchy's peanut butter & liverwunch sandwich, "When I sez 'OOG!', do that suggest anythang?"
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I wish I'd seen that before I started engaging with this guy.
I mean, wow! I leave the forum for a couple of days, and this got very weird very quickly.
So we've apparently moved on from unfinished and not legally-binding investigations to haloes in YT videos, yet still without any kind of claim. Oh, and a great deal of complaining and playing the victim.
@nt1 : Do you still want to discuss the investigations? If so, what is your claim with regard to them?
A science experiment operates through the scientific method, typically in these steps:
1. Question – Identify a specific, testable question.
2. Hypothesis – Form a prediction based on existing knowledge.
3. Experiment – Design and conduct a controlled test, changing one variable at a time.
4. Observation/Data Collection – Record what happens during the experiment.
5. Analysis – Interpret the data to look for patterns or outcomes.
6. Conclusion – Determine whether the hypothesis was supported or refuted.
7. Report – Share results for review or replication.
That’s the essential start-to-finish structure.
Good lord almighty. Did you type all of that?
A science experiment operates through the scientific method, typically in these steps:
1. Question – Identify a specific, testable question.
2. Hypothesis – Form a prediction based on existing knowledge.
3. Experiment – Design and conduct a controlled test, changing one variable at a time.
4. Observation/Data Collection – Record what happens during the experiment.
5. Analysis – Interpret the data to look for patterns or outcomes.
6. Conclusion – Determine whether the hypothesis was supported or refuted.
7. Report – Share results for review or replication.
That’s the essential start-to-finish structure.
The chisel insult was pretty good
Attachments
No. Jack. You are completely incorrect.
Here is a screenshot of a video supposed to be during the 9/11 event. Notice the shadows on the wall?
They do not properly align with the timeframe
Jack. Youve acted quite unreasonable, if you think i did think to have fun at yiur expense. In fact youve accused me lying. Jack. I hooe for better for you.
Even children enjoy picture books. Pictures arent hard to look at.
Attachments
Poor you.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Thermal
August Member
