Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[nt1]

Don't worry about my integrity. I'll do that. Just address my explanations. You're latching onto quick points you can make that distract from your inability to explain how you think your method achieves the results you claim it does. Are you willing and able to discuss how conversions between color spaces and color models might affect your findings?

That isnt how worrying about other people integrity works. That would be for me. That would be for you to attempt to showcase.

Your statement was literally nonsensical. Not a judgement. literally by definition.

 

[nt1]

You're trying to dictate what someone else's refutation must be in order to adequately challenge your claim.

As are you. You are fantastic at derailing.

All good. i appreciate that about you.

Can we talk about specific examples? Can you supply a direct reference to exactly what you want to refute?

Picture i supplied. Direct reference. Specific rebuttal. I would enjoy doing that.

Im ready.

 

[nt1]

I explained how it does. Since you don't seem to understand, I'll explain it again.

If I have an original image in which one pixel has luminosity Y=0.45 and another pixel with luminosity Y=0.55, an inverted paraboloid luminance map centered on Y=0.50 will map those two different pixels to the same luminosity, say Y′=0.95. If two pixels have different luminosity in the source and the same luminosity in the adjustment, the adjustment has lost data.

Luminance maps such as those you've employed are useful only as the first step in edge detection. They are band-pass filters that selectively amplify certain specific luminosities, generally those statistically determined to be transitional pixels between light and dark regions. Your method is nothing more than crude edge detection.

You explained....

It was not completely accurate.

Bending a curve does not remove data because it is typically a visual or mathematical transformation applied on top of existing data to help with interpretation or modeling. The original data points remain unchanged in the dataset — they are just represented differently.

Why it does not remove data:

Smoothing or fitting a curve (like a trend line or regression line) uses the data to estimate a shape, but does not delete any of the original data.

It is a representation, not an alteration.

The raw data still exists and can be retrieved or analyzed directly.


However, if someone manually changes or filters data to "bend" the curve in a deceptive way, that’s a separate issue of data manipulation — which does involve removing or altering data.

So, under normal and ethical use, bending a curve does not remove data.

 

[nt1]

I explained how it does. Since you don't seem to understand, I'll explain it again.

If I have an original image in which one pixel has luminosity Y=0.45 and another pixel with luminosity Y=0.55, an inverted paraboloid luminance map centered on Y=0.50 will map those two different pixels to the same luminosity, say Y′=0.95. If two pixels have different luminosity in the source and the same luminosity in the adjustment, the adjustment has lost data.

Luminance maps such as those you've employed are useful only as the first step in edge detection. They are band-pass filters that selectively amplify certain specific luminosities, generally those statistically determined to be transitional pixels between light and dark regions. Your method is nothing more than crude edge detection.

I do understand.

Is it ok for me to say you dont understand. Same way you did?
Is that what you enjoy about a discussion?

Your vague rebuttals and insults backed by unverified claims. Then just go round and round until you have to clock out?

 

[nt1]

You're trying to dictate what someone else's refutation must be in order to adequately challenge your claim.

That is exactly what you are doing. Is this account on auto pilot?

I think its rude to ignore someone, but you have reached pre-programmed childish bot mode.

 

[nt1]

Don't worry about my integrity. I'll do that. Just address my explanations. You're latching onto quick points you can make that distract from your inability to explain how you think your method achieves the results you claim it does. Are you willing and able to discuss how conversions between color spaces and color models might affect your findings?

Curve manipulation, when applied transparently for investigative purposes, does not remove or distort data. It is a legitimate analytical method used to enhance clarity, reveal patterns, and support understanding — all while preserving the integrity of the original dataset.

 

[JayUtah]

Bending a curve does not remove data because it is typically a visual or mathematical transformation applied on top of existing data to help with interpretation or modeling. The original data points remain unchanged in the dataset — they are just represented differently.

You're not basing your conclusions on the original image. You're basing on the transformed data. If the map that produces your transformed data maps two different values to the same value, the transformed data set contains less data than the original.

The raw data still exists and can be retrieved or analyzed directly.

You aren't basing your conclusions on the raw image, nor are you using luminance maps in a typical way. A typical luminance map is an invertible function. You're using an inverted paraboloid. It is not invertible. If your transformation is a non-invertible function, the transformation loses data.

I gave you actual numbers to work with. Show me how the inverse of your luminance map would work.

 

[JayUtah]

Curve manipulation, when applied transparently for investigative purposes, does not remove or distort data.

False. You are using a luminance map that is non-invertible. It will map different values from the source image to the same value in the transformed image. This is considered a loss of data, since the difference between two pixels in the source image will not be represented in the transformed image as a difference in pixels. The transformed image contains less image data than the original image.

It is a legitimate analytical method used to enhance clarity, reveal patterns, and support understanding...

When used correctly, yes. My point is that you are not using it correctly.

all while preserving the integrity of the original dataset.

You are misunderstanding what I mean by data loss. You are not basing your conclusions on source images. You are basing them on transformed images. The transformation you are applying is non-invertible. It will not preserve variations in data from the original image.

 

[JayUtah]

As are you.

No, I am not.

Can we talk about specific examples?

Perhaps when you address my explanation for the examples you provided. You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Orphia Nay]

9/11 zig zag.
2000 solid straight line.

So you've manipulated or tweaked images, however you want to describe it. What is this supposed to prove?

 

[JayUtah]

Incorrect. And hilariously lazy in my opinion. Similar to the same level of opinion you have applied to me..

What is the basis for your insinuation that the investigation into 9/11 was legally deficient? Is that your judgment? If so, on what body of expertise or knowledge is that based? If not your judgment, whose judgment is it?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Oh. Humor. Like what i used? Was my response not to the acceptable level of humor as yours?

I didn't notice you using humour. Your posts have exuded caustic bad temper since you joined this forum, so perhaps that was masking whatever humour you were employing.

So you are a judge of 9/11 and humor.

I know what I find funny, and what I don't, if that's what you mean.
Not sure what 'a judge of 9/11' is supposed to be, though, so I can't say either way.

Anything I need to know you sre the authority of? Ill do my best.

I am not an authority on anything. However, if you want to do your best, stick to the topic of this thread, there's a good chap.
What significance do you attach to these images you keep posting? I don't think anyone here understands what the point of this is.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This is not going to end well....

 

[nt1]

I didn't notice you using humour. Your posts have exuded caustic bad temper since you joined this forum, so perhaps that was masking whatever humour you were employing.


I know what I find funny, and what I don't, if that's what you mean.
Not sure what 'a judge of 9/11' is supposed to be, though, so I can't say either way.

I am not an authority on anything. However, if you want to do your best, stick to the topic of this thread, there's a good chap.
What significance do you attach to these images you keep posting? I don't think anyone here understands what the point of this is.

Caustic bad temper?

I do apologize.

Lets start over. Are you ready?

 

[nt1]

I had to look William Rodríguez up to be reminded who he is. I had no idea until I looked at his Wikipedia page just now that he used to work with James Randi. Small world.

Do you think that has some significance?

I would say that it somehow has significance. How? Would be guesses and research.

I can tell you i tried to find an article. About 2006 was the earliest i could find.

Means nothing. But no. There was not an easy paper trail to find pre 2001. Again. Means nothing and i didnt look more than 30 minutes. But for being a "fact" on wikipedia it was concerning.

 

[JayUtah]

I do understand.

No, you don't. Otherwise you'd be able to explain how you are getting around the invertibility problem. If you are basing your conclusions on a transformation through a noninvertible function and pretending that this reveals more about the untransformed data, then you need to write it up and claim your Nobel Prize in mathematics.

Is it ok for me to say you dont understand. Same way you did?

You can say whatever you want. However, I'm able to demonstrate my understanding by addressing the underlying mathematics of your method.

Your vague rebuttals and insults backed by unverified claims.

My rebuttals are not vague to those who understand mathematics. If you believe you have been insulted, then report the post for moderation. Do not insinuate to that effect for rhetorical value.

Then just go round and round until you have to clock out?

I'm giving you the appropriate rebuttal for your claims. You don't get to keep fishing for one that suits your understanding better.

 

[nt1]

You appear to be trying to dismiss all the US investigations

* i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Its kind of funny. I said more investigations. You said dismiss all.

You also said you weren't going with the more fantastical theories (space lasers, etc.) And you brought up the government investigations. So I figured it must be something along the lines of the "official" story of what happened, but with a different mastermind behind it.

So it's Zeno's Conspiracy Theory.

I dont know zeno or their theory. I am not a content creator. My apologies if your genuine questions were missed.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quoted text properly visible

 

[nt1]

It's not especially puzzling that someone who got prosecuted for their part in a suicide attack was prosecuted for conspiring to do it rather than for actually doing it.

Jack. That is poorly quoted.

Conspiracy theorist

Thrown at people asking questions about 9/11

Only person convicted in a judicial court of law linked to 9/11 was found guilty of

Conspiracy

9/11. Crime. Conspiracy.
9/11. Questioned. That person is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[nt1]

I had the sound off, as usual. It's sad but my first thought on being directed to such stuff is whether we're just being used to generate revenue hits. But with such a pitifully small number of people engaged it really couldn't be worth the effort.

Revenue hits. Wow. For the 14 subscribers on my channel? Is that my hustle? Just poor effort and poor level of response.

 

[nt1]

That's a bit unfair, this is more complicated than just pareidolia. Anomaly hunting to be sure, put not seeing patterns in randomness.

Thanks. That is one of the only comments that wasnt just pure dismissal.