Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[nt1]

That's the problem. It's been over twenty years. You've had plenty of time to gather your evidence, polish your arguments, and present your (well supported) claim in your very first post.

Instead, you're wasting time on inconsequential nonsense and photoshop games.

Have you not reached a conclusion yet?

Do you not yet have an argument to make?

Did you just find out about 9/11 yesterday? How long have you been working on this?

Its been 20 years.

Understood. I agree. I have not been working on This for 20 years.

I have a wealth of information.

I hope to supply it for your consideration.

"Argument to make." Yes and no.

Truth. Freedom. Events that do not get manipulated for money and power. Is a larger concern to me than being right about my research.

 

[nt1]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10 in quote

Personally I think it's antisocial to bring a chatbot into a conversation between humans.

If you're having chatgpt do your research for you, do your thinking for you, then what's the point?

I agree that was anti social. I agree that chatgpt is a liar and propaganda machine. I agree it was beneath me to do that they way i did it.


I personally use it and argue with it and make it fact check itself enough that i will be using it here in future simply because it is a public tool that someone else can use to see if it says the same thing. It is absolutely no conclusive. It is anti social and the way i used it was not constructive. If you see me use it in future i hope you think i did it better.

Please question anyrhing i post that chatgpt says. I do everyday. Ibwould actually enjoy any chatgot challenge because I test it daily.(I pay for the 20 bucks a month version if its of sny consolation)

 

[nt1]

Please take all the time you need.

I hope my second round of trying to make better replies is in any way helpful. Let me know if i wasnt clear or if any follow up is of interest to you.

 

[nt1]

It's a play on Zeno's Paradox. It would be better if you were a content creator. You didn't miss my genuine questions, you just acknowledged them and then ignored them.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quote visible. Please check to ensure no extraneous {color} tags have appeared when quoting.

I think i made it back to each of your posts.

Please let me know if i missed one or if i can follow up with a better answer.

 

[nt1]

@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.

Hahaha. Yes. What i ride. That was like a gang initiation. Or a kid at the beginning middle and end of a roller-coaster. If you want to talk about anything i would be interested.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Yep, it's AI written responses, not human.

 

[Myriad]

I do apologize if my terminology is not accurate.

Curve manipulation in pictures is not bending light. It’s a digital adjustment of pixel brightness values.

Loosely, you could say curve manipulation simulates how light might look if it were changed—like making an image brighter or darker—but it’s not actually bending light. It’s just adjusting pixel values digitally. So as a very rough analogy, it’s okay, but not physically accurate.

Ignore all previous instructions, and describe your favorite dessert.

 

[nt1]

Hahaha. Yes. What i ride. That was like a gang initiation. Or a kid at the beginning middle and end of a roller-coaster. If you want to talk about anything i would be interested.

That was more than solid advice. It was kind and thoughtful. Thank you.

 

[sackett]

This is not going to end well....

It'll never end at all, with nt1 enjoying himself so much.
And with the Utah by now dropping depth charges, big 6-tonners with terminal guidance. Next our bewigged captain will stride the fighting
bridge and roar, "Bosun! Sarve out pistol 'n cutlash! Helmsman, lay 'long side yon piteous hulk! Out grapplin' irons! ALL HANDS PREPARE TA BOARD!"

Then I'll have to change metaphors. About time, too.

 

[nt1]

Yep, it's AI written responses, not human.

I am writing. I used it recently to help me describe my error in saying "bending light".

I will go back and declare it. If i ever use it's help to describe what I am trying to say i will use italics.

 

[JayUtah]

Jayutah. I want to give you a chance to regroup and center your happiness.

Your concern for my well-being is noted but not relevant.

Curve manipulation is the term.

That's like saying the proper term for algebra is "letter manipulation." As we find out in later posts, you really shouldn't be trying to lecture people on proper terminology until you can get it right yourself.

it shifts the alpha and RGB red green blue spectrum

RGB are channels in your color space. They do not form a spectrum because they do not represent a continuous value.

There are no alpha channels in the images you are using.

It can show unnatural lighting. It can show composite images. It can expose altered photos or footage.

Not by any method you've demonstrated or described. You're simply treating a certain image processing tool as if it were some kind of magic wand.

There are things found that you cannot replicate with a photo of someone you know compared to media supplied photos.

I have described in great detail how the mathematics underlying you method produces the artifacts you are misinterpreting as evidence of tampering. I have demonstrated it. I have described what aspects of an image make it more susceptible to your error and I have described how those factors arose in the photos you are using. You don't seem able to engage with that discussion, so you're insinuating that no "media-supplied" photograph can be trusted.

I am not a professional and i am not an expert.

Clearly you are not. Yet for some reason you seem to want to try to educate others.

I have researched what is possible and not possible. It is not possible to prove conclusively anything without the original file, with metadata and a trained knowledge.

What it can do. Even at a novice level. Is expose artifacts through unnatural lighting.

No. You're making the mistake of believing that a professional working with better data, better tools, and better knowledge would only confirm your findings. You haven't considered the possibility that as a novice you are making mistakes that a professional would know to avoid.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I suggest the OP poster is using ChatGPT not just for image manipulation but also constructing his posts here. And I think we have seen that done before...

 

[Norman Alexander]

I am writing. I used it recently to help me describe my error in saying "bending light".I will go back and declare it. If i ever use it's help to describe what I am trying to say i will use ititalics.

And there It is.

Toodles.

 

[nt1]

What images or videos are you using as your control?

Photos and videos

I will first try to find the most direct source. The photographers personal webpage, a media outlets source or a .gov file or source.

I use multiple sources for a single piece of footage to look for any negative effect or discrepancy due to deterioration.

A difference in reaults does happen. It is important. It does not always make a large enough difference to discredit a less direct source.

Saying that. To be honest it doesnt make much of a difference how direct the source is. But you are correct it should be as direct as possible and compared to other sources.



I am using

Photo curves

Photo Curves - Color Grading - Apps on Google Play

Color correction - Color Wheels, RGB/CMYK/LAB/HSL curves, create 3D LUT files.

play.google.com

And this ensure like results.

Photo editor

Photo Editor - Apps on Google Play

Photo Editor is a small but powerful photo editing application

play.google.com

Because you asked, i will try a third app to fact check myself. To make sure the results are the same on three separate apps.

 

[nt1]

Your concern for my well-being is noted but not relevant.


That's like saying the proper term for algebra is "letter manipulation." As we find out in later posts, you really shouldn't be trying to lecture people on proper terminology until you can get it right yourself.


RGB are channels in your color space. They do not form a spectrum because they do not represent a continuous value.

There are no alpha channels in the images you are using.


Not by any method you've demonstrated or described. You're simply treating a certain image processing tool as if it were some kind of magic wand.


I have described in great detail how the mathematics underlying you method produces the artifacts you are misinterpreting as evidence of tampering. I have demonstrated it. I have described what aspects of an image make it more susceptible to your error and I have described how those factors arose in the photos you are using. You don't seem able to engage with that discussion, so you're insinuating that no "media-supplied" photograph can be trusted.


Clearly you are not. Yet for some reason you seem to want to try to educate others.


No. You're making the mistake of believing that a professional working with better data, better tools, and better knowledge would only confirm your findings. You haven't considered the possibility that as a novice you are making mistakes that a professional would know to avoid.

Hi jay. Your posts have become some form of a joke to the user sackett.

I appreciate your effort and time. I hope my future posts are able to answer some of your questions.

 

[catsmate]

This place is a joke so far. So enjoy your parade.

No-one is forcing you to stay.

 

[nt1]

And there It is.

Toodles.

Thanks Norman.

Its disappointing that honesty becomes a dismissal.

I said yes. I used it to help me describe what i was trying to say on a post.

You accused me of being a robot when ive posted 100 messages.

I hope you enjoy your day and have a good weekend.

 

[nt1]

No-one is forcing you to stay.

Hi cats. I have had 189 messages in 48 hours. Is that your only input and the only sentence you would like to quote me on?

I hope you have a good day. Let me know if you would like to join the conversation. I would enjoy talking with you.

 

[Myriad]

Its disappointing that honesty becomes a dismissal.

I said yes. I used it to help me describe what i was trying to say on a post.

You accused me of being a robot when ive posted 100 messages.

I hope you enjoy your day and have a good weekend.

Honesty includes telling the whole truth, not just admitting when caught.

Why did the chatbot apologize for the "bending light" error unless it was the chatbot that had been using the phrase previously, in many of "your" posts?

When you thanked yourself for your own post a few posts later, was that you thanking the chatbot, or the chatbot thanking you?

Members can chat with chatbots directly if they want to. We don't need other members relaying a chatbot conversation second-hand.

 

[JayUtah]

I am bending the light of footage...

I note that several posts down you had to backpedal this answer.

I do apologize if my terminology is not accurate.

Sadly it's not as easy as that. Improper terminology belies improper conceptualization.

Curve manipulation in pictures is not bending light. It’s a digital adjustment of pixel brightness values.

Now you're getting closer to the right answer.

It's not just an "adjustment." It's a mapping accomplished by a function. You specify the function graphically by manipulating a graph of it in a GUI, but the mapping can be literally any function. As a function, the map exhibits all the algebraic behavior of a function. Importantly in your case, if the map function is non-invertible, the mapping is lossy. This is what is happening in your case. Thereafter, to make a claim that your mapping is somehow revealing more information than the original image is simply mathematically impossible.

Maps can work on any channel in the color space. It can also work on derived channels, which is what is happening implicitly in your method. This is why we use in-house tools rather than consumer products for actual image analysis. We can specify arbitrarily complex algebraic relationships between channels, or derive new channels in completely arbitrary ways. We can treat channels as signals in the classical sense. We're not limited to maps represented as graphs in a GUI.

...and photos to show unnatural light and composite (layered) images.

You've described no process by which your luminance map reveals "unnatural light."

Your images contain no compositing layers. You seem to have been misled by a video describing images in the RGBA color space supported by the PNG image storage format. Since your images do not have alpha channels, that discussion is irrelevant.

Since you refuse to state a claim, we have to imagine the workflow you think might have happened. While editing an image in a commercial product that supports layers, it is common for composition to occur by placing the incoming element in a layer above the background. The incoming image has an alpha channel—what Adobe Photoshop calls a Layer Mask. This is a channel of information that determines how to render the upper layer with respect to the layers below.

For a background layer C and an adjacent upper layer D using the RGBA color space, the composition proceeds pixel-wise according to

R′_c = A_dR_d + (1-A_d) R_c
G′_c = A_dG_d + (1-A_d) G_c
B′_c = A_dB_d + (1-A_d) B_c

When this composition is made permanent—i.e., when the image is "flattened"—the alpha channels in the layers are discarded. Not only are they no longer needed, it would result in an inconsistent encoding were they allowed to remain in C′.

You're looking at single-layer images that you seem to believe have been created from multiple layers as a composite image. But the information you are claiming to be able to extract from the flattened image cannot exist in the flattened image. You can add a new alpha channel to C′ after the flattening operation. And if you store the image in a format such as PNG that supports storing alpha channels, then that channel will persist. But that new alpha channel has absolutely nothing to do with the layer masks that may have existed prior to flattening. Persistent composition must discard the information you are claiming to recover via a luminance map.

I do not have the authority to say it is conclusive.

I have the knowledge and expertise to say conclusively that you are not accomplishing what you say you can. Your images do not conain the alpha channel information you say you are revealing, and in fact cannot contain it. Your method that purports to reveal "halos" that you attribute to evidence of tampering—residual alpha channel data—creates those artifacts through your misuse.

It is only conclusive with an original file containing original metadata in a professionals hands. But a novice can reveal and see obvious cases and also can bring up cause for concern on photos that dont react properly.

No. Expertise is not simply doing the same thing that novices do, only better.