Thermal
August Member
-
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
Folks. That is cause for concern. Its not cause for a group to ignore and focus on the member. Talk amongst yourselves. Go try it. Then come to your conclusions. Try it. I havent seen one person try it.
I have given instructions on how to do it and exactly what i use.
Its not conclusive. But it absolutely causes concern that it is not authentic and genuine. Jayutah is not the globes final authority on this subject.
Thermal
August Member
He is not, but he can show his work and mimic the mistakes you are making, and it is persuasive. There is no reason for anyone else to try it because we understand what it is doing, and how your understanding is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ six ways from Sunday on the matter.
If I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up the use of this editor in the same way you are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, I would expect similar results. So let's say that already happened. There is no benefit to us repeating your mistakes.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
First, ChatGPT's answer is phrased as a conditional: if certain conditions hold, then your images would be poor evidence. It's up to you to demonstrate that those conditions hold—i.e., that the images have been altered. You have not shown any such thing. You've simply applied random luminance maps an attributed the distorted color to tampering.
Second, if you're asking ChatGPT adjudicate images for alteration, then it will certainly detect alteration. You're altering the images.
No. Your method produces nothing but false positives. Applying it to recent images does not prove they were altered.
You're the only one being unreasonable. It is unreasonable for you to expect others to overlook your mistakes and accept your claims regarding images as nevertheless valid.
The unrest in Los Angeles is cause for concern. Your insinuations that visual coverage of the events is being fabricated or altered are unimportant. They are based on claims that you should know by now have no basis in fact.
No, people are not obliged to ignore the errors in your methods and claims and focus instead on the implications you wish to instill. You are not detecting image tampering.
Because you are deliberately ignoring those who have tried it and who can thereby explain the errors you are making.
Irrelevant. You cannot display an informed understanding of how your tool works.
It is conclusively wrong. I have provided the evidence to support that determination.
Your fiddling around with the luminance channel has nothing to do with detecting image tampering.
It is cowardly and dishonest of you to impugn my findings when you are unwilling to engage them.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Axxman300
Philosopher
I have Photoshop, a robust photo processing program. There are a number of tricks I can use to inspect images for alteration. I don't use my phone. I, and people smarter than me on this subject use large screens to do that kind of work. The images from 9-11 you claim are fakes are in fact - real. This means your app doesn't work, or you are using it wrong, but don't care because is supports your silly theory.
How about showing Andy some respect and using you're miracle app on all the photos he provided?
Come on, nt1, tell us which 3 of Andy's photos were manipulated.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
...and do it by using the technique you have claimed to be using.
Come on orphia. Read my 6 replies to each photo.
"I seem to recall" is not on par with the level of expectation from other members on this subject. If i said "i seem to recall", i would recieve the same treatment i have recieved by applying more than "seeming".
Would you like an actual answer? It doesnt seem you do.
