Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Cosmic Yak]

Caustic bad temper?

I do apologize.

Lets start over. Are you ready?

As Arth said, we've been asking you since you arrived to set out what you want to say.
Yes, I'm ready. Get on with it. Please.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's tantalising. Your AI asked if you wanted it to explain the sorts of artefacts and anomalies that can appear in old videos but then when you said "Sure this and this" (not clear to me what "this" is) it declared itself unable to continue.

Did it manage to explain why not?

 

[junkshop]

I suggest you get a horrible chatgpt and any photo editing app. "Photocurves" is easy to use. I suggest you try it. And when you do restart chats and restart chats. Try to trick it. Try to be straight with it. Try it again all ways. ten times. Tell me what you come up with.

With any footage you choose.

What purpose is the LLM serving in this suggested endeavour?

ETA, apropos of nothing (honest): one day I hope to learn how to successfully operate a petard without hoisting myself.

 

[ahhell]

Indeed.

First the easy part. @nt1's ham-fisted luminance map is a +y-axis paraboloid once again centered in the middle of the derived Y channel (luminance channel, expressing luminosity). This luminance map has the gross effect of attenuating all the midtones to black. He gets a black line in this case for the same reason he got a white halo in his other images. And this will obscure any potential local difference in chrominance too. Soft edges (for whatever cause) need to be expressed in transitional pixels. And his luminance map just effectively turns off all the transitional pixels.

The building in the foreground is a substantial distance away from the explosion and the wall has no view factor to it. Commensurately the camera has no view factor to the top edge of the wall, which is the only surface that would be considered to have a view factor and be illuminated by the explosion. At best we would get only a fraction of an inch in the rounding of the roof edge that would have even close to an operative view factor. There is no reason to expect a soft edge there, as that fraction of an inch would occupy only a tiny part of a pixel. It's below the camera resolution.

We can consider optical effects such as lens scatter or sensor bleed. This is not a physical phenomenon in the scene but rather the physics of light passing through the lens and landing on the sensor. Adjacent sensor elements can sometimes bleed and imperfections or dirt on the lens can cause light coming from the explosion to be slightly misdirected to a sensor element that should be picking up the image of the wall. But here as with all the other images we've been shown, the oversampling completely overshadows any such effect.

This is really a case of the image having been manipulated and claims of anomaly arising from the obvious and straightforward effects of the manipulation.

I'm admittedly an ignorant layman, but this seems to be correct. At the very least, nt1 has not explained why that is not the case.

 

[nt1]

I'm admittedly an ignorant layman, but this seems to be correct. At the very least, nt1 has not explained why that is not the case.

What is it you would like to ask?

 

[arthwollipot]

I like you art.

To be funny. Im not a gold digger so ive never tried to make a claim in my life. But here we go.

Smooth line. Zig zag from computer graphics.


Black line. Smooth. Year 2000. Home video. Wtc7

White line. Zig zag. Nist video. N64 graphics.


I am looking to reveal unnatural lighting and lines. Masking lines. Composite (layered) photos

and think this is an example.

Please remember

This example with the white line comes from the one video provided by a member here. I could also make it black. By bending it in the opposite way. It doesnt change the zig zag. Which is the focus hede

Yes i think i could do better.

Yes i have provided a couple

No. I have not shown 5% of the stuff i have.

Because
1. I have been recieved like a leper.
2. This one shows just enough that if no one cares whats the point of moving on
3. Id be more than happy to flood the place with examples but it seems to be unwelcome or not understood yet. Which both are fair and appreciated.


Claim.

Cause for concern that
Pre or post footage manipulation of footage.

Reason obviously unknown.

If manipulation of any kind can be found

A re-examination needs to take place.


Art.

I have a ton of public facts that are cause for concern when compared to the level of investigation that took place. Public facts and documents that anyone can see and access.

Thanks art

Okay, and therefore...?

 

[Myriad]

I remember when my boss at the time, a very sharp MD PhD, asked me to paint a wire mesh panel white. The wire mesh was a safety barrier protecting a light wall made of parallel fluorescent tubes. Why did he want it painted white? Well, when the light wall was powered on and you looked at it through the mesh, the shiny metal wires of the mesh looked black. Painting it white would make it look white and brighten the view, right? It was quite a challenge to convince him otherwise. (Malicious compliance wasn't invented yet.)

The moral: the behavior of back lighting (such as an explosion behind a much closer building) can confuse even smart people.

 

[nt1]

asked me to paint a wire mesh panel white

The wire mesh was a safety barrier protecting a light wall made of parallel fluorescent tubes.

Why did he want it painted white? Well, when the light wall was powered on and you looked at it through the mesh, the shiny metal wires of the mesh looked black.

Painting it white would make it look white and brighten the view, right?

It was quite a challenge to convince him otherwise. (Malicious compliance wasn't invented yet.)

The moral: the behavior of back lighting (such as an explosion behind a much closer building) can confuse even smart people.

That is not comparable in any way to applying a photoshop app to reveal unnatural lighting.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have asked what pictures and video he has used as a control but didn't get a reply

 

[JayUtah]

That is not comparable in any way to applying a photoshop app to reveal unnatural lighting.

That’s because there’s much more to authenticating an image or detecting tampering in an image than wiggling the sliders. Your software tool is not some magic anomaly dispenser. Proper use of the tools requires understanding the physics of photography and lighting. It requires excellent spatial reasoning skills. @Myriad is explaining some of the important factors—correctly. Ignore it at your peril.

 

[nt1]

You think some of the video supposedly from 9/11 was pre-recorded?

And you suppose this was to allow any errors to be masked. How would that work?

I mean for example what if one of the planes missed its tower because those passengers had managed to storm the cockpit? What would be the point of having a pre-recorded video of the plane hitting the tower?

Anything which did not go to plan, such as the Shanksville crash, would be shown to have happened just as they did in every form of evidence except for these pre-recorded videos.

You could not release such videos and claim they were real if they contradicted radar, radio and phone calls, eyewitnesses, crash site debris and other authentic photos and videos.

I need you to find an exact television channel in mexico. I need you to find the 11 hour recording of it on youtube.

You will be able to see this possibility you are currently skeptical of.

If you say something similar to "hey. I'm genuinely interested" i will bring you the link and explain what im asking you to look at while you watch it.

Currently. Almost no one here has shown any interest in considering anything outside of whatever the accepted narrative of the members currently responding.

The replies, in my opionion, have been dismissive and disparaging, counter productive to any conversation outside of those members accepted narrative. Thats my opinion currently.

In my opinion The responses are a great signs that there is something there to find.

 

[JayUtah]

Currently. Almost no one here has shown any interest in considering anything outside of whatever the accepted narrative of the members currently responding.

False. Your claims were carefully considered. It was shown how your claims are factually incorrect. It was shown how your claims are mathematically incorrect. It was demonstrated that all the "anomalies" you discovered were actually the product of your inept fiddling with luminance maps. You were not subject to a cursory dismissal. You were given a complete explanation for why your claims are not convincing. You have not been treated unfairly.

The replies, in my opionion, have been dismissive and disparaging, counter productive to any conversation outside of those members accepted narrative. Thats my opinion currently.

Your opinion changes as often as the weather. Just a few hours ago you were saying things like...

Thanks jay! Great job. Thanks for the help.

Now you can't be rid of your critics fast enough.

In my opinion The responses are a great signs that there is something there to find.

No. Knowledgeable people pointing out exactly how you're wrong is not evidence that you are somehow right.

 

[nt1]

I have asked what pictures and video he has used as a control but didn't get a reply

Hi andy. Are you sure? I remember that question. I believe i sent you a response. Id be happy to reply or explain anything better.

 

[nt1]

Okay, and therefore...?

Hi art.

"And therefore"

I am assuming you mean i didnt make a point or you werent happy with my response. What can i do to better respond to this exact conversation between you and I?

Tell me and ill respond.

 

[Axxman300]

That is not comparable in any way to applying a photoshop app to reveal unnatural lighting.

And when you talked to the photographers and camera operators that took all these images, what did they say exactly?

You do realize the pictures and videos were all taken by people, right? All of them have been interviewed multiple times in the 24 years since the attacks. None of the images were fabricated. A few may have been cleaned up, many have been cropped, but they are all as they were recorded.

And if they wanted to fake video of WTC-7, why not a more definitive angle? Why drop WTC-7 at all if no one was inside? Any everyone who knows Photoshop understands that you convert the image to gray scale to reveal alterations. We've done that here many times.

 

[nt1]

That's tantalising. Your AI asked if you wanted it to explain the sorts of artefacts and anomalies that can appear in old videos but then when you said "Sure this and this" (not clear to me what "this" is) it declared itself unable to continue.

Did it manage to explain why not?

Hi jack. Yes. It is concerning. I can show you dozens of those.

I believe there is something here to be found.

I am not an expert

Im not here without fact checking or controlled experiments.

On this specific subject I just wish to be considered and to have a discussion and evaluate these things with members.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not an expert

No, you are not. And it has been shown how your lack of appropriate knowledge has led you first to apply unwarranted expectations for what you think you should observe, and second how your misuse of image processing tools has produced the "anomalies" you claim are evidence of tampering.

You simply want your lack of expertise not to matter. You are laboring under the delusion that if professionals having better data and using better tools were to follow your work, they would arrive at the same conclusions as you. But instead your claims have been examined by experts who have given you a detailed review showing you what you're doing wrong.

Im not here without fact checking or controlled experiments.

You've shown no evidence of controlled experiments.

On this specific subject I just wish to be considered and to have a discussion and evaluate these things with members.

You have been considered. You have been given a fair hearing. Your critics have explained to you in detail how you are wrong. You have had the discussion you asked for. Now you seem merely to be sulking because it didn't validate your efforts.

 

[nt1]

And when you talked to the photographers and camera operators that took all these images, what did they say exactly?

You do realize the pictures and videos were all taken by people, right? All of them have been interviewed multiple times in the 24 years since the attacks. None of the images were fabricated. A few may have been cleaned up, many have been cropped, but they are all as they were recorded.

And if they wanted to fake video of WTC-7, why not a more definitive angle? Why drop WTC-7 at all if no one was inside? Any everyone who knows Photoshop understands that you convert the image to gray scale to reveal alterations. We've done that here many times.

Name any photographer and i will show you at least one cause for concern. Wheter it be considered relevant to you, i cannot make that judgement. But i promise. if you send any photographers name i will show cause for concern about them being a genuine spontaneous photographer. Seriously.

Again. I am not saying anything more than i will be able to show something that gives reason to consider they arent an innocent janitor standing around.

If you suceed in finding one i will be happy. I dont want a big mystery. Wish there wasnt one.

 

[Oystein]

I only wanted to show the possibility that footage manipulation can be revealed by utilizing tools to display artifacts and composites.

But you failed to do that. Instead, you showed the possibility of manipulationg a array of images such that edges are exaggerated. And so...finding edges in a wide

The theory behind that would be. ...

...because you FAILED to show what you merely wanted to show, but didn't, any "theory behind that" would be invalid based on the possibility you could not demonstrate.

Here is what your theory OUGHT to be:

1. You have an algorithm, or a technique, where you fiddle with luminance mapping until edges stand out visually as excessively bright or dark lines
2. Some sorts of image manipulation, like inserting foreign content into an image or retouching only a certain area, may create edges
3. Your algorithm may find such edges resulting from image tampering
4. But it will also find any other edges!
5. Every image of buildings in NYC has edges. Your algorithm finds them
6. This is not evidence of tampering, not even of "possible" tampering, this is just inevitable when you take videos in NYC and upload them to YT.

Pretty much like observing that I have a low level of appetite, and theorizing that I may suffer from a virus infection, because some virus infections lower appetite. In reality, it's simply that I have just eaten a full meal, and that generally tends to lower my appetite: It happens routinely at least two to three times a day, does so to most healthy people, and is fully expected.

And then you come along, as us to pick a random person off the street. You then manipulate them by feeding them five hotdogs. Then you yell HEUREKA! NO MORE APPETITE! and claim you found sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into a virus infection - into an epidemic even, because almost every subject lost their appetite after you fed them five hotdogs!

But it is really just the nature of eating cycles plus your manipulation that generates the effect.

And back to your image manipulation: It is the your manipulation, and the edgy nature of images of architecture, that generates the effect that you find suspicious.
You reveal something trivial.
And not any cause for suspicion or even a "New Investigation (tm)".

 

[Norman Alexander]

Five hotdogs?? Eurgh!