The orginal is 1024x1280.. so 1.3 megapixels I guess.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "vibrancy", but yes, the colours are certainly saturated.

It's worth bearing in mind that for the most part, a CCD, is a CCD, is CCD... they're pretty generic. The image is always going to be processed by the camera/phone to a certain extent, during conversion from the RAW data from the CCD, to an RGB jpg image. The extent of this I guess is dependant on the manufacturer.


edit : ROFL c3hamby!!

no fooling you is there? Yup, and that's just the top layer.. they get even more varied as you go further down the pile...ok I admit it. My name is Nowthenlookhere, and I am an Amazonaholic.. . I'm trying to kick it, but I just can't get by without my fix..



[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

Okay guys,

This is just preliminary but it appears that in addition to Exif information thats embedded into each photo (or should be atleast) there is also something called DCF (Design rule for Camera File system). DCF is basically the specification that mandates how files need to be stored in a digital camera (or cell phone camera). The thing is - DCF specification states that all image date/time information is mandatory if available. That means that if the camera knows what the date/time is (and if they don't it usually defaults anyhow correct?) as per the spec its supposed to store that info in the file system of the camera taking the picture.

So in essence, while the photo itself my not have the information - the file system the file was stored in (EG the Camera Phone) will.

I'm still looking into how we can interface with the phone and retrieve such data. It's pretty obscure stuff but if we can make it easy for our anonymous uploaders we could possibly get ALOT more info from the pictures we're getting.

I will stay in touch and keep updating and hopefully I can find a solution.

Originally posted by Palasheea
As for anonymous' image #4 that Jeff commented on, that tiny almost imperceptible light that he had circled on that photo is no different from similar area's of that photo that are also showing small pinpoints of light in that photo.
The only reason why he was focusing on that area of light was because it's located in the area where that alleged UFO was moving by on a somewhat horizontal line as indictated by the position of the same UFO in those other photo's. But if we didn't have that information, IN KNOW WAY would anyone notice that area that Jeff pointed out in that photo.

Well I guess I must be a real freak, because I saw it within seconds...and Springer can verify that. What I have noted by the circle is not present anywhere else in the photo. There's a highlight, shadow and defining edge, and to boot the shape consistent edge of what we see in prior shots.

Secondly, I think all the shots posted by cell cams seem pretty much in line with lighting coinsiding with vibrant colors. You say you dont "buy" the wash due to limitations of cell optics, yet Edward's shows just that, as well as the gent who posted the "book" shot.

Could it be a reshoot? Yeah, nothing is off the table. I'm not a digital only guy either, my first job was illustrating meat (yes, meat...steaks etc) for supermarket ads when I was 18, and then onto rendering illustrations for architectural firms so I'm well aware of reshooting. But I also recall lighting and "pushing".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I personally think there's enough in here to show vibrancy within cell shots and optic washes for high contrast ones.

Again, we know SO damned little, and I for one dont see the need to repeat the O'Hare analysis working time for these when there is (just like O'Hare) so very little to go on. I personally dont wanna go thru that ever again for an anonymous photo. I'll wait for the ones people wanna attest to.

My write up stands as is on my ATS CM board.

Jritzman -

You work with imaging and photography. Are you familiar with the SMIA (Stanadard Mobile Imaging Architecture)?
Its the new standard all camera phones / mobile "devices" use to take images.

Problem is, you have to be a member of the the SMIA website in order to access the technicial details and specifications of it.

I'm getting at this because we really don't know how and what a cell phone does to take a photo. Knowing this would help immensly when we try to figure out if a photo is the real deal. Knowing how the mechanics of the camera function (the lense, aperature, etc) - and the software API that actually stores the photo works would, IMO prove invaulable.

Any information that you could provide would be great (that goes for anyone, not just Jritzman).

Hey there- No I'm totally not. All I can really do is compare known cell shots and note the similarities. Most times in my line of work there's no call for cell stuff whatsoever.

I have a call into 2 people who might be able to offer some information on cell cams, or point me in the direction of people who can help.

~J

Sweet thanks for the reply! I hope you can come up with something

On to other notes - I've actually found the chip that most camera phones use to capture images.

There are 2 key differences - camera phones that can capture ONLY still images - and camera that have the ability to capture video.

The difference is how the phones process the image signals. Phones that can capture only stills use only JPEG compression when processing the image.

Phones that can capture video use the M-JPEG standard. In reality the phone is taking video and the processor is literally chopping up the video into stills. This might account for some of the oddities in our photo(s).
I didn't know this until I did the research.

We should find out if the phone that took the pictures in the first place (that would be Mom's cell phone) has the ability to take video. If it does - I can pretty much assure you that most of the visual oddities that are present (such as vibrance, clarity and the chromatic variations) are because of the signal processor in the phone.

This might also explain why some camera phones provide EXIF information (I would think the phone that can only take stills would provide the information) while camera phones that can take movies as well as stills do not provide the EXIF info because ... in reality ... its using MJPEG which DOES NOT have a provision for EXIF in the first place.

Hope that helps. I can provide links to source information if anyone is interested.

Zeeon-
I've written the site you mentioned, and asked for information or someone that would be willing to detail information on cell images. I think it'd behoove us to get all the info on the possible aspects such as color limitations and aberrations, sizes, reaction to light and dark, and as you mentioned the methodolgy of how the cam captures.

All that could be valuable for future pics if they surface. Seems with the advent of such technology it stands to reason people will be doing alot of shots with cells.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Zeeon-
I've written the site you mentioned, and asked for information or someone that would be willing to detail information on cell images. I think it'd behoove us to get all the info on the possible aspects such as color limitations and aberrations, sizes, reaction to light and dark, and as you mentioned the methodolgy of how the cam captures.

All that could be valuable for future pics if they surface. Seems with the advent of such technology it stands to reason people will be doing alot of shots with cells.

Thanks a bunch! I agree with you 100%. I think this a valuable resource for us considering how much the UFO Community questions the validity of cell phone pictures.

I mean, if all we do is bash the photos without taking the time to learn how they are aquired and processed and applying that knowledge with respect to the circumstances surrounding the photo to get a more complete understanding of the photograph from which to base our opinions, then we, as an ATS community, are not living up to the standard of Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by davidbiedny

At this point in time, photography & videography are no longer what they once were - methods of presenting absolute evidence. In the current era, ANY photo or video clip could potentially be fabricated or manipulated.

I would like to respond this statement - while what you say might be true, are you willing to simply disregard all photographic 'evidence' simply on the basis that it might be fabricated?

I for one am not. I think that if a photo can be fabricated / manipulated, there will be evidence of such tampering. The concept of locating hidden evidence is the basis for the science of forensic analysis.

If I am to believe what you say at face value, then I suppose I should assume that forensic analysis is also a waste of time, because, in the end - what does it really matter? If nothing can be wrought from analysing any kind of evidence (photographic or not), then I guess the entire realm of forensic science is also just a big conspiracy..right?

Just my two cents on the matter.

Originally posted by zeeon

Originally posted by davidbiedny

At this point in time, photography & videography are no longer what they once were - methods of presenting absolute evidence. In the current era, ANY photo or video clip could potentially be fabricated or manipulated.

I would like to respond this statement - while what you say might be true, are you willing to simply disregard all photographic 'evidence' simply on the basis that it might be fabricated?

I think due to the "age and stage" of the ability to fake shots, what it comes down to is motivation, and depth. How many anomalies can you find within a shot or series of shots, that would be past what kind of effort someone wants to put into it? If it is past the ridiculous stage, then by whom? For what purpose?

Yes, you can analyze pictures and video til youre blue, but sooner or later it's back to real investigation and asking the tough questions thats arent answered in a day.

In short it's alot tougher to render any judgement, unlike how it used to be some years ago. It comes down to more then photo/video analysis. In this series of photos, we've essentially been robbed of more info that we need to determine all this. Do they look good? Hell yes. Especially #4, for all the reasons I gave over at my ATS CM forum.

So, whats the motivation for it? No idea, and no chance to find out. But I dont personally feel it's a hack job if it's hoaxed...it's more effort then the norm if it is...and again, whats the motivation??

Could all these be doing nothing more then having public opinion dismiss them as hoaxes because theyre anonymous and we're at a dead end because we cant investigate them futher? So ok, the public looks away and forgets it. Mission accomplished. Could this be the case? It's possible. Do I think it's likely? I dont know.

The story with this set seems plausible, and the 4th shot, because it sucks is compelling to me. Why include it? Again, motivations we have no idea about. We need names, and the ability to speak with people who shoot these kind of images. We dont even have to release the names, as long as researchers if pressed can verify them.

People need to step up and have some courage to say "this is what I saw and I can relate the experience, location, time, date"...and so on. This is the critical piece. If people arent willing to do that, I'd almost rather they keep their footage to themselves...because short of giving a general analysis, I cant do my job to qualify them. Theyre just another anonymous on the woodpile.

People need to step up and have some courage to say "this is what I saw and I can relate the experience, location, time, date"...and so on. This is the critical piece. If people arent willing to do that, I'd almost rather they keep their footage to themselves...because short of giving a general analysis, I cant do my job to qualify them. Theyre just another anonymous on the woodpile.

This is exactly what I was getting at 2 posts earlier in regards to obtaining a complete understanding around a photograph. You are, yet again, right on the money.

We need both - not one or the other - as I was saying in my last post that we just can't assume all photo's are faked/manipulated/fabricated. All these elements MUST come together cohesively to form a complete understanding of any particular 'event' or phenonmenon.

Just as we aspire to understand the inner workings of cell phone cameras to gain a greater handle on what *exactly* goes on to formulate the image we are viewing, we also must aspire to collect the background information necessary to correctly (or atleast somewhat accurately) assess what the picture we are viewing is protraying.

Aka Springer could you Please ask your 'inside man' if he can give us the model of his mothers phone? And any other pertinent background information that you might be able to muster?

If anonymous refuses tell us the model of his mom's phone and the year she bought it -- or for that matter, if he does not get back to Springer at all should he contact him about our questions, then it's pretty much a given that he added those UFO's in those photo's and that they are fake.

Hoaxers stay clear of participating in an in-depth analysis of their hoaxes because the more information they give, the more there's a chance someone will catch some discrepancies and falsehoods in that information they are giving to those who are evaluating their photo's. It's very clear that this may be the case with anonymous.

Once again, there's absolutely no reason why this person cannot at least participate in this dialogue of his mother's photo's. He doesn't have to give his name to us or any personal information at all. Our questions concerning his mom's UFO photo's are extremely non-intruding and very basic.

We DON'T want to be seen as a den of vipers! NOBODY will come forward if they think we are going to rip their head off.

Now, this kid has SEVERAL REASONS to stay away, his mom told him to DELETE the images after Homeland blew her off, he did BUT he also saved them to his own PC.

I also STRONGLY disagree with the statement "Hoaxers stay away", hoaxers LOVE to be PART of the discussion, that's what gets most of them off, laughing at everyone and continuing the hoax.

As I've said, when CREDENTIALED EXPERTS (JRitzmann and David Biedny) tell me IF these are hoaxed they are way beyond "typical" work I believe them.

I really don't care if they are "real" or a hoax, either way it's a pretty BIG DEAL. Well if they're REAL it's a HUGE DEAL.

I agree that the level of professionalism and quality of the images we are getting is NOT indicative of a kid in his mom's basement (AKA the typical hoaxer). There's more at play here if these are fakes, IMHO.

Everyone just CHILL, the kid has not responded to me, but he said up front that he couldn't/wouldn't so there is little else I can do, except try everyday which is exactly what I am doing.

Springer...

[edit on 2-8-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Palasheea
If anonymous refuses tell us the model of his mom's phone and the year she bought it -- or for that matter, if he does not get back to Springer at all should he contact him about our questions, then it's pretty much a given that he added those UFO's in those photo's and that they are fake.

Hoaxers stay clear of participating in an in-depth analysis of their hoaxes because the more information they give, the more there's a chance someone will catch some discrepancies and falsehoods in that information they are giving to those who are evaluating their photo's. It's very clear that this may be the case with anonymous.

Once again, there's absolutely no reason why this person cannot at least participate in this dialogue of his mother's photo's. He doesn't have to give his name to us or any personal information at all. Our questions concerning his mom's UFO photo's are extremely non-intruding and very basic.

I would agree with you so far in as hoaxers may not want to participate due to being caught in a lie. As for the validity of the photo - yet again I have to say that I cant rule this out as a hoax simply on the lack of background information. It would be nice - and certainly we can't say that the photos and the event are true (because of the fact we are lacking in background information) based on photos alone.

In essence, I think we have arrived at the point where, without further information we are at a stand still concerning this event.
I'm still looking into the Camera Phone world and will continue to research this in hopes of finding a way to determine more information concerning cell phone pictures in general. As to this particular thread - I think if more information doesn't surface soon - we are at a stalemate.

Originally posted by zeeon
In essence, I think we have arrived at the point where, without further information we are at a stand still concerning this event.
I'm still looking into the Camera Phone world and will continue to research this in hopes of finding a way to determine more information concerning cell phone pictures in general. As to this particular thread - I think if more information doesn't surface soon - we are at a stalemate.

Exactly... This is just another "Data Point" we'll take ALL we can get regardless of their "ability to be vetted" because data is the ONLY thing we can hope to get. More data = the chance (no matter how slim) of getting near the TRUTH.

NOBODY owes us ANYTHING. Let's NOT lose sight of that FACT.

I can say with confidence however, that if we continue to act like badgers (I am NOT talking about you zeeon) in our posts we stand a VERY GOOD chance of scaring off the one or two people who may be contemplating coming forth with FULL back up, the ability to vet their images and full testimony. That situation is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE to me (and I hope everyone else) and won't happen on ATS.

Springer...


[edit on 2-8-2007 by Springer]

Ninja -

Can you take video as well as stills with your phone? Reason I ask is I want to get a real world example of the MJPEG / JPEG compression processors at work. If your pictures contain EXIF AND can take video then I'm missing something and have to re-examine the standard cell phones are using to process imagery.

Thanks in advance

Yes - my phone absolutley DOES do video.