It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

page: 8
125
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Ya know, i find it interesting that in Light Test 2, Pic 2, the phone is able to clearly see the TV in the background without being washed out by the 2 Million Candle Power Spotlight at close range... this could be useful when comparing to UFO shots where the objective appears close to the sun.




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Haha! it is probably just the moon.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
OK - so back to topic... after all we have seen and discussed about what cameras can do, through examples, what conclusions can we now draw from the annony's original photos?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
OK - so back to topic... after all we have seen and discussed about what cameras can do, through examples, what conclusions can we now draw from the annony's original photos?


I don't think you covered everything on what a camera can do.

Maybe study some camera tricks. Bring out the Experts On Trick Photography, I would like to hear there creative ideals on how this can be done with a few illusionary photography methods. I for one know it can be done with a mirror lol.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by XPhiles]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Alright guys,

I have some news. Now, before I begin I'd like to state that the UFO pictures I used for this I grabbed from springers 1st post on this thread. So if they were altered - I will need the clean version. I know ATS put the watermark on it - so if it was altered by ATS (in photoshop) then disregard this.

Here is a photo of my desktop, which has the output of a program exiftool.
This program (and its supporting documentation) is here

This is the photo of my desktop showing the output of the exiftool applied to image ufo003.jpg

desktop image

Now what you want to look at is the line which reads "APP14 Flags 0 : [14], Ecoded with Blend=1 downsampling"

When you reference this Exif Tag with the exiftool website I listed above you will see - APP14 - Adobe R Adobe DCT filter information.

This leads me to believe that these images were altered with Adobe photoshop, and adobe applied whats called a DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) algorithm. This effects the JPEG compression and blending in the photo (i believe).

Again, if ATS mods altered the pictures with photoshop (or ANY Adobe product) you can disregard this.

If not - I think this photo is a hoax.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
No we have not covered everything... but we did cover some things, and thats what I was referencing.

We did the tech stuff, now I agree we need to hear something from our image and photography experts in light of what we have figured out.

HEY ZEEON - what does that particluar filter do? Can you find an example? Also, would it be possible that the phone could have applied the filter as part of its image quality algorithms? Good find!


[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Also -

Here is the text paste from that exiftool output -

D:\>exiftool -ALL ufo003.jpg
ExifTool Version Number : 6.74
File Name : ufo003.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 63 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:02:08 05:40:58
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
JFIF Version : 1.2
Resolution Unit : None
X Resolution : 100
Y Resolution : 100
Quality : 75%
DCT Encode Version : 100
APP14 Flags 0 : [14], Encoded with Blend=1 downsampling
APP14 Flags 1 : (none)
Color Transform : YCbCr
Image Width : 640
Image Height : 480
Image Size : 640x480

Here is the output from Ninja's RAZR-3.jpg file (Note the lack of APP14 tag and DCT encoding)

D:\>exiftool -ALL RAZR-3.jpg
ExifTool Version Number : 6.74
File Name : RAZR-3.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 77 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:02:08 16:36:23
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Make : Motorola
Camera Model Name : 1.3 Megapixel
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered
Exposure Time : 1/21
Exif Version : 0220
Date/Time Original : 2006:12:14 20:11:06
Create Date : 2006:12:14 20:11:06
Components Configuration : YCbCr
Flash : No Flash
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 640
Exif Image Length : 480
Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version : 0100
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
White Balance : Manual
Digital Zoom Ratio : 2
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0)
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset : 555
Thumbnail Length : 24315
Image Width : 640
Image Height : 480
Image Size : 640x480
Shutter Speed : 1/21
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 24315 bytes, use -b option to ext
ract)

-- zeeon

[edit on 8-2-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
you know, the modified date on the annony pic is the same date as today...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
you know, the modified date on the annony pic is the same date as today...


Yes thats true - that exists because I copied the photo from one directory to another. Windows will modify the file (the one thats copied, not the original download) because it has written it to the disk. It happens and I can paste it from the original download if you would like.

*EDIT* now that you mention it, even the originals I downloaded have it. Maybe thats because it was added by windows when I saved it? I can't really give an explaination for that - but what I can say is MY COMPUTER did not add the APP14 tag - and thats evident from the same info I took from your picture.

So the basic premise remains - the ufo pic was edited by an Adobe product.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

Originally posted by damajikninja
you know, the modified date on the annony pic is the same date as today...


Yes thats true - that exists because I copied the photo from one directory to another. Windows will modify the file (the one thats copied, not the original download) because it has written it to the disk. It happens and I can paste it from the original download if you would like.


no no thats fine - its what i thought it was - was just trying to clarify.

EDIT: yeah i guess saving it to the disk would incurr a mod date wouldnt it?

EDIT: I wish springer or another amigo would drop us a clue as to whether they ever touched the file with Adobe for any reason... that seems crucial info at this point. I'm sure they will be through here soon enough and throw us a bone - busy guys, they are.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]


[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Maybe study some camera tricks. Bring out the Expert On Trick Photography, I would like to hear there creative ideals on how this can be done with a few illusionary photography methods. I for one know it can be done with a mirror lol.


Well, If this were a VFX shot for a feature film, you'd do it in one of three ways.

1. Create a CG saucer and comp it onto the background plate.
2. make a model of the saucer, a shoot it in the same environment as the background plate, same time of day etc, so the lighting matches.. maybe infront of a blue/green screen (not neccessary on a still really ), then comp it on the background plate.
3. suspend a model saucer in the scene on wires, or maybe on some sort of frame, then remove the wires/rig from the final shot.

3 looks impractical in this case due to the apparent height and distance of the saucer. It could be suspended much near to the camera, on a smaller rig, but that's not really consistant with the distance haze. The haze could be faked, but it's not so easy to do with an element that's also part of the background scene, particularly in a low-end (by film standards) tool like photoshop... you don't have the level of control over edge quality that you get in Shake, the industry standard compositing software.

1 is possible, but it's unlikely that an un-trained 16 year old is going to be aware of all the little tricks to make it look convincing, the edge qulaity, sharpness, haze, lighting etc.. still this is a low res image..and a still at that so it's not impossibe.. but comping CG is actually a lot harder than it might first seem.

2 would be the easiest way, but again it would require some adjstments to the saucer element to correct sharpness, haze etc..

I agree with jritzmann, the 4th shot, in this thread, it sthe most compelling :-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

here's an close-up, not resampled, of the saucer behind the branch in the fourth image :-


It could have been comped or painted in, but it that's the case, they did a VERY good job of it. The colours, the chromatic bleed/aberations, the edge shapeness, the branch in the foreground... everything, is spot on, right down to pixel level. I honestly can't find a thing wrong with it.


[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I'd also like other users who are familiar with EXIF tags to see if other programs can see the EXIF information I dragged out of the UFO photos. I for one can verify that ExifPro.exe CANT see the APP14 tag embedded in the photo (all 3 of them to be sure).

I think this compelling evidence. We really need a moderator to confirm wether or not (and by what software) the watermark was put on by an adobe software.

In reality I'd love it if someone/anyone has a clean version of the photo that I can analyze.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
zeeon.. if it's any use to you I can send you the original "book" photo from my phone (too big to upload), so you can check out the meta-data.. just u2u me with an addy or place I can upload it... (I'm off to bed soon though so let me know in the next 10 mins or so, otherwise it'll be tomorrow)



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Looks like we could be very close to saying this is NOT hoaxed... if determined to be genuine... WHAT IS THAT THING? Why are they showing up everywhere? What's about to happen?


Again... IF.... just conjecture at the moment...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Am I the only one who thinks this could be a balloon or a blimp. I mean they don't seem to closely look like an extraterrestrial space craft.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoSteve85
Am I the only one who thinks this could be a balloon or a blimp. I mean they don't seem to closely look like an extraterrestrial space craft.

Those shots were all taken right after each other... and ballons dont move that quickly in a linear fashion that low to the ground. Blimp? mmm... maybe... do you suggest that there have just been an enormous amount of ballon/blimp flights around the world in the past couple weeks? To me, it doesnt hold water.
IMHO


[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoSteve85
Am I the only one who thinks this could be a balloon or a blimp. I mean they don't seem to closely look like an extraterrestrial space craft.


that did cross my mind as I examined them, though I'd expect to see at least some sign of fins or motors.. still, some of the newer airships might fit the bill, maybe like these :-


www.defenseindustrydaily.com...


www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

hard to say.. our UFO looks maybe a little too metallic to me..



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
Again, if ATS mods altered the pictures with photoshop (or ANY Adobe product) you can disregard this.

I added the watermark in Photoshop.

Let me see if I preserved the originals... if not, we may need to wait until Springer emerges tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
if it was a blimp, it must have been haulin ass! Like I said, those photos were all taken within seconds of each other... and the "object" traverses a large swath of sky in that time... and it is so small in the field of vision, that if it were a blimp, it would have to be pretty far away, which would only increase the amount of sky it traversed during the sequence of photos. I just don't buy it.

EDIT: thanks Skeptic... i betchya 10 ATS points the originals don't have the Adobe flags in 'em


[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by zeeon
Again, if ATS mods altered the pictures with photoshop (or ANY Adobe product) you can disregard this.

I added the watermark in Photoshop.

Let me see if I preserved the originals... if not, we may need to wait until Springer emerges tomorrow.


SO, for future reference, you might want to look into Shake. It's cheap these days (well couple of hundred dollars instead of the $10k I paid for my first copy a few years back), runs on a mac, and is fully scriptable from the unix command line so fully automatable.. if you like I can put together some scripts to do these watermarks etc without degrading the image at all, and send them to you..




top topics



 
125
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join