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.

 

Unknow object caught on picture.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I am now also able to notice and discern some lighter shades of blue pixels (with a somewhat different tone) surrounding and slightly permeating the UFO, from the immediate background (composed of darker shades of blue). That really makes it look suspicious to me. Can that be a possible indication of tampering? Since I've experienced the same kind of effect before when editing photos. I suspect that may have been the result of trying to make the UFO blend in more to the background. Unless that's some kind of faint aura or force field emanating from and around the "saucer". It really might just be a bird or some stray object, but I wouldn't discard image tampering just yet in addition to that possibility.

I zoomed it in then took a screenshot from my PS window:
img369.imageshack.us...


I made another version of my UFO, but this time I added a blurred translucent layer behind it before applying the smudge and blur tool:
img363.imageshack.us...


[edit on 18-10-2008 by smirnoffsky]




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by smirnoffsky
 


Those blocks of pixels around the image is a completely normal byproduct of jpeg-compression. It's called a "blocking artifact" and it is not evidence of tampering.

Blocking artifacts occur in 8x8-pixel squares. It has something to do with the "averaging out" of colors of a pixel that is next to a pixel of a different color.

As you can see, these 8x8-pixel blocks can be seen all over the sky in your first example above.

I think this is a real photo, but it is most likely a photo of a bird in mid flight. Bird are everywhere, so that seems like a perfectly logical explanation.

[edit on 10/18/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by smirnoffsky
 


Let me attempt to explain what you are seeing. I shoot with Pro DSLR's in RAW format so I don't have a good example. When you shoot with point and shoots in .jpg format it is different.

In the picture below, which is a Trumpeter Swan which picked an unfortunate moment to cross my shot, you can see a lighter area or halo around it. It is normal for a digital shot and would be far more pronounced on a low quality shot in .jpg format. You will see some darkening or lightening of edges depending on how sharp the image is.




It might be more apparent in this high contrast shot where you can see the lightening against dark edges and the darkening against light edges.




The effect is far more apparent on the low quality shots but it is normal. It's how the camera helps to define the edges and how the sharpening in digital photo's works. It is an imitation of the old unsharp masking used with film.

It does tend to make items with sharp edges look like they are pasted in, but it is normal. When looking for manipulation, look for discrepancies in pixel sizes. If you see that it is altered. Also look for hue discrepancies around edges.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Just because someone can reproduce something similar, does not mean that it is photo shopped, thats just daft if you think that, anyone who has seen a Movie over the past 5 years, knows what can be done by some clever clogs.

The question here is what is it, you may as well put the photoshop out of your minds until someone comes up with definitive proof of tampering, or the OP gets hold of the original with the exif data.

Also the two examples offered of reproduced photo shopped copies, it just looks like you took the original object, copied and rotated it back onto the picture, not proof of anything IMO.

I don't know what the object is, it could be a bird or bug or even an Alien Spaceship moving at incredible speed, I will be waiting for the original, before I raise an eyebrow at the answer.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It looks to me like it's a bug or a small bird. The bright central patch would be consistent with the wing of something like a bee, glinting (much like the bikers helmets). It could also be due to a light patch on the wing of a bird, which looks to be flying either from or to the trees on the left of the photo. The apparent height seems right for that too.

Either way, it's almost certainly a bug or bird flying left-right or vice versa, and the shutter speed has not been fast enough to freeze it completely. I'd wager the shutter speed was 1/500 or less - even 1/500 would be borderline with a small fast moving subject like this. 1/1000 would almost certainly have frozen it.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
@Blaine91555
@Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation. Very helpful information there. I can now understand the effects of a "blocking artefact" especially on a small, blurred object. I took the time to recreate this effect, again to satisfy my curiosity, and applied a low quality jpeg render on a cropped version of my second UFO attempt. Lo and behold, I was able to achieve the same kind of effect.

Here's what I'm talking about:

img183.imageshack.us...

Combining that with just the right angle from the cameraman's point of view, yeah I am pretty convinced the the UFO effect was most likely to be due to a poor jpeg compression on a blurred image of a bird. However, I think there is also a smaller possibility of it being modified or fabricated via image editor like PS by a really good "image doctor". If someone really actually took the time to deliberately make it look like what it is right now, I'm reckoning they can.

Not that my second example earlier was anything close to a masterpiece, but by trying to make an actual sample, perhaps the possibility of image tampering could still be there. My point being, if an average PS user can reproduce something like that, what more if done by an expert?


@azzllin

I can see your point that I could have just copy/pasted the image, the very reason why I pointed out the steps on how I was able to arrive at such results. If my steps in PS are followed, combined with a bit of artistic touch, I reckon just about any average PS user with significant experience could achieve the same kind of result. IF I was merely able to achieve such results using a simple method of copying/pasting, then the more reason to believe that someone could have easily tampered with the image to begin with.



Again, I would like to make it clear that second UFO attempt I posted earlier, though not perfect, was achieved by fabricating a disc-shaped object and then applying tools and filters to it with dual layers via PS to make it look the way it is now. Which is a fake UFO. Perhaps just about any image can be photoshopped to make it look real, but in context to this image by the OP, this one to me is a contender.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by smirnoffsky]



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join