Originally posted by Palasheea
I just thought I'd post this information so that someone here can make sense out of it.
I took the 000000's UFO photo and I blew it up 315% (see top image with the UFO in it).
Then I too jritzmanns' airport congestion photo and blew that one up 947%.
If you notice, the UFO photo was obviously taken by a webcam or a cellphone cam. Look at the surface artifacts of that photo as this alone is a dead
give away. You can't reproduce this surface effect except with a low quality cam.
Now look at the photo that jitzman found in google's images. You can see that it started out as a hi-rez photograph taken by a hi-end camera. Those
white dots were added to that photo and you can see that clearly because of the very well defined pixelization around those 2 dots -- but we are not
focusing on that now anyway.. just look at how different these photo's look in terms of surface artifacts. Even when jritzmanns' photo was blown up
947% you are still not getting anywhere near the surface artification that's in the UFO photo that's above it because it was not taken by a webcam
or a cellphone cam -- but the UFO photo was.
The UFO photo does not appear to be tampered with. You can see very clearly that any kind of tampering on a surface like that is going show up very
clearly on even casual analysis.
[edit on 24-1-2007 by Palasheea]
Blocking Artifacts
The well defined pixelization around the lights in the congestion photo has another explanantion besides being added in or tampered with -- and that
is "Blocking Artifacts". Blockin artifacts ar ethe 8x8 blocks of pixels which are caused by the limitations of the jpeg compression format.
When a photo is compressed into a jpeg format, the jpeg works in 8x8 pixel squares, one 8x8 area at a time. The compression algorithm "sees" the
flat blue sky as basically a homogeneous blue field, thus there is very little "Blocking Artifact" effect in the sky, since the overall average
color of the sky is blue. But once the jpeg compression gets to resolving the small white dots, it does so in 8x8 blocks. The small white dots
throw off the "average" color of the blue sky, so the JPEG compression software gets confused and "messes up" some of the blue sky pixels around
the white object. This happens, as I said, in 8x8 squares of pixels. Count the "odd looking" pixels around the white object. you'll see that
it's a 16x16 square, or four 8x8 blocks arranged in a square.
And, BTW, since the sky in the UFO photo was a less-than homogeneous gray color, the blocking artifacts are much noticable (again you will see that
they are in 8x8 blocks of pixels)
Here's a website that explains these jpeg compression artifacts:
ai.fri.uni-lj.si...
and BTW, concentrate on the jpeg part of that article, not the jpeg2000. Jpeg 2000 is a whole other technology that is designed to eliminate blocking
artifacts.
and another:
www.techweb.com...
this one may start with an advertisement (which you can skip) - my apologies
Are there any digital media professionals that can help me explain this better...I'm sometimes not very good at explaining.
The bottom line is that the odd looking pixel around the bright object are completely consistent with what would be expected of a jpeg compressed
photo of the lights from planes landing at an airport. It doesn't necessarily mean the congestion photo was tampered with
But again...if the UFO photo turns out to be fake, that does not mean the the O'Hare incident didn't happen. I will still stay open minded. (open
minded to
both sides of the discussion, that is.)
edit to add a clarification.
[edit on 24-1-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]
