Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

a photo a good friend took... Very Weird !

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Anyone notice that the resolution of the 'little guy' is higher than the resolution of the rest of the picture?




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
Anyone notice that the resolution of the 'little guy' is higher than the resolution of the rest of the picture?


How did you measure the resolution? Did you just "eyeball calibrate" it?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by Simulacra
Anyone notice that the resolution of the 'little guy' is higher than the resolution of the rest of the picture?


How did you measure the resolution? Did you just "eyeball calibrate" it?


Yea it was just a quick pass over. However, it seems pretty obvious, I’m surprised no one caught this earlier. Although, the naked eye isn’t a precise tool to analyze an image.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Darn, I was SO HOPING you would provide a tut on how to measure picture resolution in specific places on the photo.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
If the character is outside the window and is lit from his left side (which it is), you would expect other items nearby to be lit the same way as well -- and they're not.

Of course, most of the light from the camera's flash was reflected back by the window, but since most windows are only about 1/8 in thick, they're not going to refract light that does get through; therefore, the figure should've been lit from his upper right, not lateral and left.

There's a lot more to photoshopping a picture than just re-sizing it and sticking it in the first photo.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Looking at this zoomed in view which I have adjusted the contrast/brightness of - the anomaly does appear to be behind the glass but in front of the grass you can just make out in the background I think, can anyone with sharper eyes tell?



Can you give us a picture taken from the exact same place in daylight for us to make a comparison?


[edit on 17-1-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I figured it out!! Its a shrunken Larry King, with sunglasses on. Now this begs the question, who shrunk him, what have they done with his legs, and what does he want from you (besides his legs back!)



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It kinda looks like theres a cop car in the image. The red and blue parts next to the window are about the same height as they would be on a Police Car, and the front end of the car would be about where the man is standing, so itd be hiding his legs. It would also explain his gun holster.

Click here to see.

Unless the red and blue is being reflected from inside...

[edit on 17-1-2005 by dreamlandmafia]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I don't think the resolution is any higher, he's just in better focus... That would suggest (as the window/wall is in okay focus and the grass isn't) that the object in the image is in relatively close proximity to the window pain. If he was standing a long way from the window (behind it or as a reflection from behind the photographer) he would be very out of focus. Thus, coupled with his small size, in reality that's gonna have to be really small to look like that in the _ I say either a small model next to the window you have a reflection of or a very small ghost somewhere.... :p



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Two things, where are his legs its looks completely wrong as the lower half of his body is just gone. Secondly why would people looking like that want to monitor you mate anyway, what the hell did he do? lol



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
It must be a reflection you can even see the bushes through him. Well i can anyway, anyone else?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Maybe it's a glitch on the memory card, like a double exposure of some sort then again I'm not even sure if it's possible for that to happen but if it is maybe he took a picture of something else and it ended up in this one.

If anyone here reads Wizard magazine they'll be aware of the fact that it is quite easy to customize action figures (and if done correctly damn funny) and turn them into something else.

It looks more like a modified Chip Hazard action figure from the movie Toy Soldiers(?) i think that was the title.

If those are guns they are obviously revolvers (western style notice the white grips) if I'm seeing it correctly.

Also, is that a badge I see on the figures vest?

So my guess is modified action figure, and I find it very plausible that a twenty year old man would have an action figure, I'm in my thirties and I've got some pretty odd stuff in my house.

IMO of course.

Spiderj



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
It's a "legit" pic (digitally speaking of coarse). What I mean is, no one fooled around with the pic prior to posting it and the picture was on May 9, 2004 at 10:36.

I pulled the pic off the net and checked the "embedded digital info". (all digital cameras embed thhis info. I can even tell you the resolution, exposure time, etc... in fact it was taken on a SONY DSC-P32 Camera.

The picture was taken and NEVER modified after its creation date. (For those who wish, I can post a screen shot of this information pulled from the pic.


Now, does any of this prove its a ghost or something unexplainable? No. But I must say... if it is a reflection- it would have to be very close to the _.. and I would like to know where is the rest of the body then?

Overall- its a very interesting find.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Am I the only one that can see the outline of the lil fella's pants? I think the reason it looks as if the "reflection" has no lower body is because the pants are almost the exact color of the background could be wrong.

As for the size of the "reflection" what about false perspective?

Spiderj



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
How do you get all this information from the JPG? I've heard about it before but have never really found out... USeful thing to know.........



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiderj
Am I the only one that can see the outline of the lil fella's pants? I think the reason it looks as if the "reflection" has no lower body is because the pants are almost the exact color of the background could be wrong.

As for the size of the "reflection" what about false perspective?

Spiderj



i was just about to post the same thing. He is wearing black pants and if you look at the scratches on the window and where it isn't scratched you can clearly see his pants. He has a lower body!



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
How do you get all this information from the JPG? I've heard about it before but have never really found out... USeful thing to know.........


You have to use a "Hex Editor" which essentially shows you the code that makes up the picture, you can open anything with them. Can't remember where I got mine, but there are numerous free ones around. Just open the picture with it and there's quite a bit of embedded information. On that one I can see the camera make/model and date it was taken, but that's about it (I don't know about the various codes of other things, so I'm restricted to the obvious
) Don't know how you can tell the resolution about it. Generally if it's been edited with a program it'll have "Adobe photoshop" near the top (sometimes others, but it pretty much always mentions adobe). That's about all I know


If someone would like to contribute on some more clever techniques I'd be most abliged!



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I've just found another way!!
In windows XP, if you right click on the image and select 'properties'...
Then select the 'Summary' tab - it's all in there!



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Dammit, I knew one day I'd find a downfall with Win2000


Good find.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Whoa! Thanks for the tip about the extra JPEG info using XP. I never knew about that. I'll see if I can get my friend to grab a pic in the daylight tomorrow right outside his _ Right now it is pissing down and really overcast and it's 3:16pm right now, so not exactly great conditions, but I'll get the pic outside his window in the light from him tomorrow. I enjoyed the humorous posts in here. Also, to whomever mentioned the resolution of the "little man" being higher than that of the rest of the picture, didn't I mention that in my original post? I thought I did... Well anyway, talk to you guys again tomorrow!

(edit)
Ahh yes... I did.


Another amazing aspect is when you zoom in a bunch, everything in the photo gets really blurry while this little character stays fairly focused and sharp, atleast moreso than the rest of the picture.


[edit on 17-1-2005 by tpyomna]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join