Need Analysis of this picture - Please help

Clearly, this picture is of a book....but in front of it is a cigar cutter...there's a cigar in it and its been smoked...it seems very odd...prolly nothing, some creep just trying to make a statement. That's all I can tell

I'd have to see it in better than 75 dpi.

reply to post by SpacePunk



Horizontal and vertical resolution of the original 1,68MB picture is at 72dpi....don't see how your request can be met....

If the res. was higher we'd probably have found it already......

reply to post by thechi


I was referring to the post on page 4 where Stereotype says:

"Well I'm thinking it's a fake.

On flickr it shows that you took this anomoly photo on Novemeber 13 2008 yet the other 2 photos that you posted and were used on ebay were taken December 31 2007 according to Flickr. Just so I'm not misunderstanding anything, How and why would you take a couple pictures of an item a year ago with no anomolies, post the item for bid on ebay,(which didnt sell) then almost a year later take another picture of the item which now has an anomoly appearing on it?

Thinking of putting back on ebay as the Mysterious Optiloupe?"

The EXIF information is missing from the photos he says were used on ebay, so I couldn't pull out a timestamp, and had to rely on flikr's timestamps. However, there's no doubt that they are the same lenses, one with the anomalous image and one without, or at the very least the boxes in the image are the same, as they bear the same precise wear marks.

@spacepunk: why would the DPI resolution matter to you? are you printing the picture out to view it? The original is only 72 dpi, which tells a printer how big to print it, not how big the image is, or how fine the actual resolution of the image is. The resolution of the original image is 3264x2448 pixels, which would print out at 115.1 cm x 86.4cm at 72 dpi. The dpi resolution can be altered to whatever you like, without affecting the image quality. It will only affect the print out size and quality.

@ Operation Mindcrime: I noticed the double bilateral symmetry when someone posted the image upside down a few pages back. It's striking, but not quite perfect. There may be other factors affecting the reflection quality that could cause those minor imperfections. Reflectivity differences at different areas of a reflective surface, like smudges, or ripples, come to mind. With that said, it's surprising how little the image changes when it's rotated 180 degrees. Additionally, there appears to be more curvature on the left side of the right side up image if it is indeed displaying a "rotated" version of the right side. That could be caused by the curvature of the reflective surface, the diffraction of the (thinnner or thicker) glass towards the edge of the lens, or simply the viewing angle combined with either of the above.

nenothtu out

reply to post by nenothtu


I'll make it even better for you. If you look at the original "double" picture without the image in the lens you'll see two white specs of dust on the surface of the table. In the nov.2008 photo those specs of dust are still there and in the same position.....
All these photos were taken in one set......

But the OP is not in the know of where and how these photos were taken and got them from his friend. I believe in the sincerity of the OP but i think he is being fooled by his friend. Hence the reason this man doesn't want to react on ATS. To much critical thinkers......

I'm just trying to help the OP figure out what's in the photo so he can ask his friend why he did it........



[edit on 8/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

here's a mspaint-quicky on the little doggy i'm seeing. The dog has some sort of chewchew toy in his mouth.......



Wahahahaha.......let's see what else we can find.

Here are the specs of dust i was talking about...

reply to post by operation mindcrime


The dog was interesting. When I got the original photo from you this morning, I asked my wife what she saw in the picture, and she said "well, it's a standard poodle, of course!" and then she proceeded to point out precisely the same things you did in the above photo. Dealing with dogs is what she does for a living, so I filed it away in the "sees what she knows" category until just now.

nenothtu out

reply to post by operation mindcrime


The dust specks are interesting. I hadn't noticed that. I took the earlier post about the ebay photos at face value, didn't check the flikr timestamp myself, but the photos obviously WERE taken at the same time, and the EXIF in the original pic we have is for 13 November this year, so maybe the error is at flikr on that. The EXIF info is stamped into the photo whenever the picture is taken, by the camera. Some scanners put it there too, but they tell what scanner they are rather than what camera they are.

nenothtu out

reply to post by nenothtu


It also seems that the image in the lens has been added the effect called "shower glass" effect in photo editing programs such as "Picnic".
D*mn thing is...you can put it in there but you can't reverse it (logically!!)

...it's a mystery.....( ), well i say the friend of the OP is pulling his leg but what the h*ll.


edit: removed the first part of the text cause that's what the above poster was saying aswell

[edit on 8/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Let me know if you get the original of the photo without the anomaly - the one used on ebay. I'd like to dig into it, and check the EXIF and the finer resolution of the pixels in a hundred percent image of it. The original of the anomaly has fine pixellation that looks sort of like the "oil paint" function in most image processing software, but that could have been caused by the slow shutter speed too (1/4 Sec). The longer the shutter stays open, the more photons hit detectors on the CCD, and are recorded, leading to sort of a "blossom" effect. I'd like to check for that in the non-anomalous one too.

nenothtu out

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I think we're getting cross-threaded here, but thinking along the same lines. There ARE ways to remove those strange effects used to blur photos on computers, but most of them are classified. Think about the recent case where the child-molester was identified and apprehended based on the reversal of the means used to obscure his face in photos found on the internet.

nenothtu out.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

Let me know if you get the original of the photo without the anomaly - the one used on ebay.

Your knowledge of digital photography exceeds mine by far so thank for that info. If have already requested the orig. ebay photo a couple of days ago from the OP but he had to ask his friend to give it to him. Haven't got anything so far. I'll forward it as soon as i get it.

But the best give away has to be the part about the lens reflecting an image half way through the lens and then inverting the reflection. In my mind no lens in the world is capable of doing this. Reflecting an image half way through..sure that's possible. Inverting an image half way through the lens...sure that's possible but doing both these things in one lens....heck no. That lens should have multible curvings on one surface?? I'm no science prof. but i guess that's just impossible unless your using digital image-editing tools. So i'd like to hear somebody with knowledge on that.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Consider this:

If the original image already had one reflection, as say, would happen at a lake shore (horizontal reflection), and that image were to be reflected in a surface that gave it a side-to side-reflection (or vertical reflection if you prefer)... see where that's going?

nenothtu out

[edit on 8-12-2008 by nenothtu]

If the original image is indeed a lakeside setting and is refected horizontally half way through the lens in the water then the image in the water would have to be one on one with the above image i.e. if an object is left of the image then in the water reflection it should also be on the left side in the water. But in this image it is clear that ONLY the water reflection is turned 180 on a vertical axis. From a perspectives point of view this doesn't make any sence. Only way this could have happend is when the artist who made the painting already made an inverted reflection in the water surface.....right???

reply to post by operation mindcrime


That's right. Maybe a reflection on a 45 degree diagonal? No, then the blurrier parts wouldn't be right. Maybe a function of the lens curvature? I dunno. I'll have to scratch my head some more and sleep on it, I reckon.

nenothtu out

Well i can answer that one quite easly..
The funny guy who edited this picture got it together to devide a picture in two an make what appears to be a reflection but it was a little to hard to also invert the reflection 'cause then you would have to have the backside of the painting....and paintings are 2D so that would be impossible...

Here's my attempt at trying to make waterside reflection....you see...you can cut out the org. and flip it 180 but then you get the result which you seen in the original. (now artist in the world would make a reflection painting like this)

reply to post by nenothtu


I am working on getting Operation the photo w/out anomaly. The photographer is going to look for it today, so I will get back to you guys later.

On a side note, I really don't know how it comes across when I comment on what everyone is saying here. What I mean, is that if "you" think this is fake then it's pretty silly for me to say anything at all about this photo. It would seem like I was patronizing you if I were in your shoes and thought there may be a chance the OP is full of crap. I dunno, just a thought, but I still appreciate the comments

Hey mindcrime, any luck yet with those uploads?
I'm keen to take a look!

If your upload problems persist, you can mail them to me directly. Actually, mail them to me anyway check your u2u's.

You have both images right?

Thanks!

reply to post by The_Modulus


He Modulus,

The email is on it's way, you should have it by now.....

I sorry to say we are all still waiting on the original ebay photo in which nothing could be seen......

But that shouldn't interupt with our little game of "what's in the lens"....

Give it a go....your guess is as good as mine......

Edit: english: improving....stop...flawless: not yet entirely.....stop

[edit on 8/12/2008 by operation mindcrime]