Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Have you used your tools and methods on photographs and videos that you know haven't been manipulated or had layers etc added to them?

If you haven't then how do you know your tools and techniques are reliable?

 

[nt1]

You have no theory, as thinking persons understand the meaning of the word. Even as a hypothesis your words are lacking coherence.

Hi steve. Thank you for your opinion and input. I will try to bring you a better theory and hypothesis.

 

[nt1]

I have seen numerous twoofers come and go. So far Yiu have presented nothing new

Hi cat. i dont know what that is. I assume it is an insult. I will try to bring you something new.

 

[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.

Hi jack. This forum has so far demanded absolutely no speculation. I have a few ideas and responses. I would need to word them very carefully in a single response. Otherwise I would open a can of worms.

I would really enjoy responding to each of you questions and bullet points. Please give me to time to word it carefully and clearly.

 

[nt1]

Have you used your tools and methods on photographs and videos that you know haven't been manipulated or had layers etc added to them?

If you haven't then how do you know your tools and techniques are reliable?

Yes. A couple times here, i have said that i do that. Yes. I fact check the thought, the idea and myself. Yes. That is very important. I agree with your question and reasoning.

 

[nt1]

Ok, but reasoning it through, all the footage appears identical to what was filmed by private individuals from various angles, and consistent with the hundreds of eyewitness accounts. There doesn't appear to be any footage that shows anything different.

So what do we make of that? That no footage was obtained by anyone independently, and only planted/doctored footage has been shown? I find that kind of practically impossible on its face, which leads me to want to explore another explanation for the perceived anomaly.

Hi Thermal. You have asked excellent excellent questions. I have answers with ideas based in facts for your questions. I said in a response to someone else. This forum demands very percise responses. I would need to carefully write this response. Its a great question and i would enjoy writing it and talking with you about it. Please give me time to return to this question because it is a very good one.

 

[nt1]

Ok, but reasoning it through, all the footage appears identical to what was filmed by private individuals from various angles, and consistent with the hundreds of eyewitness accounts. There doesn't appear to be any footage that shows anything different.

So what do we make of that? That no footage was obtained by anyone independently, and only planted/doctored footage has been shown? I find that kind of practically impossible on its face, which leads me to want to explore another explanation for the perceived anomaly.

Hi thermal. Im going through several replies. I think i just responded to this one from you. But i would really like to say this is a very excellent question. Please give me time to carefully word the reply.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay. I need to tell you. I would really enjoy to apply any information and knowledge you can give me. I currently feel like your tone and approach is not coming from a place of being helpful. I could be mistaken.

You’re blundering ahead as if your “analysis” implicitly has some basis in fact or science. You don’t get to enjoy the presumption of correctness and authority. If you want to be educated, start behaving like a student. Questions like, “Is this a valid approach?” Or “How could I validate my method?” are far more productive than allegations of shabby treatment.

How about this. Without the "trial for my life" style half dozen quotes. If you want to be helpful to me or want me to understand a technical aspect, say it in a concise message without the tone and quotes.

This is my professional area of expertise. If you want to dabble in it and make baseless accusations, be prepared to be challenged in the manner and to the extent the field requires. No one is obliged to coddle you. If you can’t rise to the rigor you aspire to, don’t blame others.

If you want to be educated in it, you’ll need to do a lot more homework on your own before it’s worth my time to be your teacher.

 

[theprestige]

Hi thermal. Im going through several replies. I think i just responded to this one from you. But i would really like to say this is a very excellent question. Please give me time to carefully word the reply.

Maybe you should take a week off, get everything carefully worded, and then come back once you're ready.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes. A couple times here, i have said that i do that.

Your choice of example photos indicates you don’t know what effect the various factors in your images affect your method. A valid test would require that your calibration images be congruent in every respect to your specimen images except for the absence of actual tampering. So far they aren’t.

 

[JayUtah]

I have a feeling that no matter what the attitude in responses will remain the same.

The responses will be the same as long as you continue applying the same broken method. And you shouldn’t expect any different.

Your method seems to be:

1. Fiddle with image adjustments.
2. Note something.
3. ___
4. Claim that the thing shouldn’t be in the picture.
5. ___
6. Conclude that there was tampering.

Steps 3 and 5 are the parts you’ve been asked for, that you keep leaving out. Step 3 requires you to have a basis of knowledge and experience that informs your expectations. You don’t have that. Step 5 requires you to show how tampering reliably and exclusively produces the observed affect. You haven’t done that.

When these shortcomings remain the fatal flaw in your approach, asking for a different rebuttal is just wishful thinking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hi jack. This forum has so far demanded absolutely no speculation.

Oh. Did it do that? I feel like I missed a meeting.

Anyway, various people have asked you what your point is, so if you can describe it that would be a great help.

 

[nt1]

A hard line. Not affected by the light of the explosion.

A line visible before and during explosion.

The light of that explosion should illuminate and alter that solid black line.

 

[junkshop]

A hard line. Not affected by the light of the explosion.

A line visible before and during explosion.

The light of that explosion should illuminate and alter that solid black line.

Why?

 

[nt1]

A hard line. A solid line. That should be affected by the light of that explosion.

 

[JayUtah]

The light of that explosion should illuminate and alter that solid black line.

What leads you to expect that?

Why have you attenuated the mid tones to practically nothing?

 

[junkshop]

A hard line. A solid line. That should be affected by the light of that explosion.

You already posted this in the other thread. Please just pick one.

 

[JayUtah]

Why?

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.

 

[nt1]

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.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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

No idea? Really? You spent the first few posts here badmouthing the investigations, remember?
But, OK. let's try again. Do you accept the 911 Commission and the NIST report as valid?